Jump to content


Photo

Ambulocetus Natan and Pakicetus...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 May 2009 - 12:36 PM

The sequence starts with a creature that looked something like a wolf, and ends with modern whales. In between they look like a cross between a wolf and a whale: elongated snout, nostrils halfway up the snout, legs more adapted for swimming than running.

The reason they are thought to be whale ancestors is that they all have a distinctive structure in the inner ear, which today is found in whales and nowhere else. Wikipedia says: "The shape of the ear region in Pakicetus is highly unusual and only resembles the skulls of whales. The feature is diagnostic for cetaceans and is found in no other species." So anything that has this feature is referred to as a whale, even the ones which have four legs.

View Post

Your Pakicetus is only known for one odd feature, its inner ear design. The snout and the way it looked is pure imagination:

Posted Image

Please note the limited resources and the amount of artistic freedom given to the reconstruction of the Pakicetus.

How did they determine the snout location on a portion of the skull that did not exist? How did they determine the length of the skull from a fragment of the lower jaw?

I know they're professionals. They have PHDs to make their imaginations more accurate. :D

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 May 2009 - 12:41 PM

Here is a statement that is worth examining:

He who has an ear, let him hear

Let us evaluate, in some detail, the much-discussed evolution of the cetacean ear. It turns out that there is only one (one!) unambiguous bullar synapomorphy linking Pakicetus to the cetaceans, and simultaneously absent in all noncetacean animals.49 What about the numerous other auditory features supposedly involved in cetacean evolution? A detailed analysis of 64 aural and other basicranial traits,50 spanning the entire scope of cetacean evolution (and thus consisting of pre-cetaceans, Archaeocetes, Odontocetes, and Mysticetes), has been performed. In this particular study, only 17% of the 1472 possible data points are missing. Almost half (44%) of the traits are nonprogressive! The situation gets even worse, from the ‘evolutionary progression’ point of view, if we focus our attention primarily on modern whales and their immediate (extinct) relatives. Using one archaeocete cetacean as the outgroup, and omitting one of the 28 traits which has more than half its data missing, one can examine the ‘intermediate stages’ involved. It is sobering to realize that two-thirds (17 of 27) of the traits reverse themselves.51


http://www.answersin...i1/chimeras.asp

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 May 2009 - 12:47 PM

Let's give the evos the benefit of the doubt. Let's say old Pakicetus did look like this:

(but still keep in mind how much of this is pure imagination)
Posted Image

How did we get to this below, from that above? :D

Posted Image

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 May 2009 - 12:58 PM

Here is ambulocetus natan. Another supposed whale transistion:

Posted Image

It's amazing what finely tuned skills those evolutionists have... to take those scraps of bones and present the infallible truth of this creature to the world: :D

Posted Image

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 May 2009 - 01:09 PM

Look at this nice picture. Woo hoo, that's nice. It must be true:

Posted Image

Now a quick question. How did those legs disappear and this tail take its place simultaneously and why?

Posted Image

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 May 2009 - 01:30 PM

Here is the truth. We have terrestrial mammals, semi-aquatic mammals, and aquatic mammals. This is not proof that one changes into the other. It's proof that there are terrestrial mammals, semi-aquatic mammals, and aquatic mammals.

#7 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 18 May 2009 - 03:53 PM

Here is the truth. We have terrestrial mammals, semi-aquatic mammals, and aquatic mammals. This is not proof that one changes into the other. It's proof that there are terrestrial mammals, semi-aquatic mammals, and aquatic mammals.

View Post


Exactly! Consider the many examples we have living and what they might have been classified as, had they had become extinct before we had a chance to observe them. One can only "imagine", and I mean that literally!

Why are the unknown/extinct automatically placed into an evolution scenario of "transitional forms"? How can we know if they were transitional of anything? Speculation is not evidence. Digging up a fossil and placing it into a sequence and claiming evolution is not evidence. Drawing an animated scenario showing it's "evolution" it's not evidence.

We don't observe it happening today, nor has it been observed in history. Why does one assume it MUST have done once upon a time? It appears all creatures reproduce after their own kind, exactly as they were created to do from the beginning. The potential for variety is already contained. No new information is added, and as yet, even with selective breeding for particular traits, one kind of animal has still never become another! We can observe much variety and how interesting (and sometimes quite bizzare) the outcomes are, but the animal remains the same kind of animal. The once upon a time stories in a land before observation with the animated scenarios we're given appear contrary to what nature has shown us for thousands of years.

We can look at the fossil record and discover the same kinds of animals existing "millions" of years ago (if one believes in an old earth). There is no clear cut evidence of anything "incomplete" "half evolved" or in a state where it's on its way to becoming "something" or "something else".

And the creatures that became extinct, most likely, if the laws of nature and observation is anything to go by, were complete, functional, lived according to what they were created for and reproduced after their own kind. Becoming extinct does not make an animal "transitional".

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 May 2009 - 11:28 AM

I split these posts out of:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2263

People need to become aware that whale evolution is not a beneficial topic for the evolutionists. These creatures are mesmerizing. The effort to make this a win for the evolutionists must be exposed with solid education, so when people hear about these supposed transitional fossils, they are also aware of the extreme weakness of evolutionary jargon trying to make this topic an evolutionary victory when there is nothing further from the truth.

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 May 2009 - 11:50 AM

Pakicetus is fully terrestrial,but has large ear bones.

Elephants use ultra low frequency to hear over vast distances,so i would like to see the ear bones of pakicetus compared to an elephant.

There is no evidence that pakicetus was adapted to hearing underwater,but watch these scientists try to put an evo-spin on it any way.

Arguments for this theory hinge on whether Pakicetus had the hearing of a land-dwelling or a marine mammal. Newly recovered jaw and middle-ear bones strongly indicate that Pakicetus was not well adapted for underwater hearing, says paleontologist Hans Thewissen of Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C. Thewissen discussed the new Pakicetus fossils and their implications at last week's meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Toronto, Canada...

A decade ago, paleontologist Phillip D. Gingerich at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor first described Pakicetus. Based on a reconstruction of the creature's skull, Gingerich determined that Pakicetus did not seem to have the necessary equipment for underwater hearing. Also, the whale ancestor's remains were found with those of land mammals. This evidence suggested that Pakicetus had an amphibious life-style.

The new fossils strongly confirm Gingerich's theory. They show that Pakicetus had very narrow channels in the back of its jaw, making it quite unable to accommodate the large fat pads characteristic of cetaceans, explains Thewissen. The structure of the middle-ear bones -- the first recovered for Pakicetus -- are also decidedly uncetanean, Thewissen notes.



#10 Hippocampus

Hippocampus

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Camberley, England

Posted 08 June 2009 - 03:03 AM

Sorry for delay in replying - hadn't noticed that someone had started a thread with a quote from me. Quite flattering. I haven't yet plucked up the courage to start a thread in this forum, so it's nice that someone did it for me.

Sad to say, I haven't any major contribution to make to this discussion.

I see that transitionals have been mentioned, and it's right that we are reminded that in truth, there are no transitional species as such, but I don't see a problem with using the word when we are talking about an individual as it relates to others in a (presumed) evolutionary sequence. If the theory of Common Descent is correct, then all species are transitional: if not, then none are (although I suppose there are still transitional varieties).

Having said that, there are some creatures that have a transitional look about them. Consider the seal.

Posted Image

It has some gear at the back end that is obviously very efficient for swimming, but it looks very suspicious. It may not be a pair of feet on its way to becoming a tail, but I reckon if it were, this is probably what it would look like.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 June 2009 - 05:48 AM

Hippocampus,

Thanks for the candor in your reply. Yes, you are right, with such a large variety of animal kinds plus varieties within those kinds, one can make an argument that one looks like it is close to changing into another.

The reason conspiracy theorists can introduce a lot of correct facts and still produce weird conclusions is because of the number of dots involved. When you have enough dots, unusual connections can be made.

Let's do a thought experiment. First, the plain truth. Could modern whales have evolved from modern seals? Even if the evolution paradigm is believed, modern whales and modern seals are not in a linage but distant cousins from some other distant relative... "the missing link".

Okay, now pretend that neither whales or seals are known to exist today, how hard would it be to take fossils and imagination to put these two creatures in a linage that professes one turned into the other?

Here is the rub... I've said this before but I'll restate it here...

We have terrestrial mammals, semi-aquatic mammals and aquatic mammals. What does this show? Well it demonstrates that we have terrestrial mammals, semi-aquatic mammals and aquatic mammals. That's it.

The remaining evolutionary inference is assumptions and assertions, not science.

Hippocampus, I do have some questions for you that I'd like answered, when you have time. Can you acknowledge that the OP is correct in questioning the extremely shaky conclusion regarding what the Pakicetus even looked like based in the very limited fragmentary evidence? Also, what does this say about the nature of the evolutionary fields of study in general?

#12 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 June 2009 - 12:34 PM

Your Pakicetus is only known for one odd feature, its inner ear design. The snout and the way it looked is pure imagination:

Posted Image

Please note the limited resources and the amount of artistic freedom given to the reconstruction of the Pakicetus.

How did they determine the snout location on a portion of the skull that did not exist? How did they determine the length of the skull from a fragment of the lower jaw?

I know they're professionals. They have PHDs to make their imaginations more accurate. :lol:

View Post


So let me get this straight, you're argument is that a drawing has been done using an incomplete skeleton??? It's not at all an invalid argument, and since I'm not a paleontologist I'm in no position to explain any methodologies that might be used.

Be come on man, those drawings are 20+ years old. How would you like it if I misrepresented Christianity in such a way. Not important. Look at this link.

Skeleton

You're obligatory response should be something like this.

It's amazing what finely tuned skills those evolutionists have... to take those scraps of bones and present the infallible truth of this creature to the world:



#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 June 2009 - 02:14 PM

Be come on man, those drawings are 20+ years old.  How would you like it if I misrepresented Christianity in such a way.  Not important.

View Post

You're right, it truly is a shame that we have to continue to debunk such shaky and inconclusive evidence. Is it our fault that evolutionists hold on to lies and imaginative concoctions?

#14 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 09 June 2009 - 07:13 PM

The reason they are thought to be whale ancestors is that they all have a distinctive structure in the inner ear, which today is found in whales and nowhere else. Wikipedia says: "The shape of the ear region in Pakicetus is highly unusual and only resembles the skulls of whales. The feature is diagnostic for cetaceans and is found in no other species." So anything that has this feature is referred to as a whale, even the ones which have four legs.

View Post

Imagine the possibilities such logic opens. If the platypus was extinct today we could classify it as a bird since it has a bill, a feature only found in birds. 'So anything that has this feature is referred to as a bird, even the furry ones which have four legs and lack wings and feathers.'

We might also consider classifying it as a viper as it has a venomous spur on the inside of its heel. 'So anything that has this feature is referred to as a viper, even the furry ones which have four legs and lack scales.'

Heck, and since it lays eggs, maybe it's transitional between a snake and bird! A 'twofer'! Oh, the possibilities!!! :rolleyes:

The reason conspiracy theorists can introduce a lot of correct facts and still produce weird conclusions is because of the number of dots involved. When you have enough dots, unusual connections can be made.

Let's do a thought experiment. First, the plain truth. Could modern whales have evolved from modern seals? Even if the evolution paradigm is believed, modern whales and modern seals are not in a linage but distant cousins from some other distant relative... "the missing link".

Okay, now pretend that neither whales or seals are known to exist today, how hard would it be to take fossils and imagination to put these two creatures in a linage that professes one turned into the other?

Here is the rub... I've said this before but I'll restate it here...

We have terrestrial mammals, semi-aquatic mammals and aquatic mammals. What does this show? Well it demonstrates that we have terrestrial mammals, semi-aquatic mammals and aquatic mammals. That's it.

The remaining evolutionary inference is assumptions and assertions, not science.

Hippocampus, I do have some questions for you that I'd like answered, when you have time. Can you acknowledge that the OP is correct in questioning the extremely shaky conclusion regarding what the Pakicetus even looked like based in the very limited fragmentary evidence? Also, what does this say about the nature of the evolutionary fields of study in general?

View Post

Right on Adam. This reminds me of what Gould once said:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Gould, Stephen Jay, "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977, p. 14)

and this leads directly to your other point:

I know they're professionals. They have PHDs to make their imaginations more accurate. :D

View Post

An active imagination is a very important - perhaps the most important - part of the evolutionists toolkit. Let's look at a frank confession of this, courtesy of one Philip D. Gingerich. In the January, 1995 issue of Discover magazine (1994 The Top 75 Science Stories). On page 84 we read an item by Carl Zimmer:

The year's second missing-link whale was unveiled in April by Gingerich. Named Rodhocetus, this 46-million-year-old whale falls between the shore-hugging Ambulocetus and the water-bound Prozeuglodon. Rodhocetus's legs were a third smaller than those of Ambulocetus, restricting it to a crocodile-waddle on land. Its legs were shrinking because Rodhocetus no longer depended on them for swimming - massive tail vertebrae indicate that it had a powerful tail that allowed it to go where no whale had gone before. "Ambulocetus was pulling itself up on the shore every night, but Rodhocetus was probably out there for weeks at a time, more committed to the water," says Gingerich. Within a few million years, whales like Prozeuglodon had given up land completely.

While there are many more primitive whales to be discovered, the evolutionary case is now closed. "We were making it up before," says Gingerich. "Now we don't have to."

First, forget about the veracity of the interpretation of these fossils in particular or evolutionary theory in general; what does this say about science as it is practiced by the modern-day evolutionary establishment? This is a damning admission from a prominent practitioner of the 'evolutionary arts'; the fact that he felt free to offer it and that Discover apparently had no qualms about either the statement itself or publishing it speaks volumes.

Now, a few more things about this confession:

1- Since when is it acceptable scientific practice to 'make it up'? This man should have been run out of the science establishment on a rail; of course he wasn't - because they all do it.

2- Why were they 'making it up' before? He explains in the next sentence; because they 'had to'.

3- Why did he (and his fellow travelers) 'have to make it up'? Well, in a practical sense, because they didn't have any evidence before. But why did they feel such evidence was so necessary as to 'making it up'? I would say it was because their faith - and the need to convince the public - demanded it. The ends justify the means.

4- I've often wondered what the state of opinion regarding Rodhocetus is within the establishment these days. If Rodhocetus has fallen out of favor, is Gingerich and his colleagues back to telling tall tales about whales? I'll have to look into it.

5- Since it is conceded in the piece that '...there are many more primitive whales to be discovered', should we expect more bedtime stories? Such stories may be a bit less...extravagant...as ' the evolutionary case is now closed', but surely these gaps need filled with something don't they? A little something to tide the faithful over until the 'evidence' is found?

6 - Is the assertion that 'the evolutionary case is now closed' another story?

7- Given that such story telling is acceptable practice in evolutionary 'science', what other stories have we been told in the past? What tall tales are they spinning today while they wait for the evidence to appear?

8- These same people have the gall to poke fun at creationists for believing in the 'religious stories' found in the bible! It seems to me that these evolutionary stories, being motivated by faith (the substance of things not seen - in this case fossil evidence), are at least as religious as those found in the bible.

9 - If a creationist had said this in print (much less in a widely disseminated publication), it would be forever used as proof that creationists 'don't do science, they just tell stories'.

There is a lot to be gleaned from this little story in an old issue of Discover - I'm glad I kept it.

#15 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 June 2009 - 07:26 PM

The reason they are thought to be whale ancestors is that they all have a distinctive structure in the inner ear, which today is found in whales and nowhere else. Wikipedia says: "The shape of the ear region in Pakicetus is highly unusual and only resembles the skulls of whales. The feature is diagnostic for cetaceans and is found in no other species." So anything that has this feature is referred to as a whale, even the ones which have four legs.


Thats not true.

The inner ear of pakicetus is similar to other terrestrial mammals as well.

Scientists have already shown that elephants, like whales, giraffes, hippos and other animals, have the ability to communicate using subtle vocalizations that are below the human range of hearing. This is called infrasound, and it travels through the air (or in the case of whales, through water) as low-frequency waves.

But it is also known that some animals use seismic communication, which is when low-frequency waves travel through the ground. Researchers had already studied small animals and insects like blind mole rats, kangaroo rats, spiders and scorpions using seismic communication, but until recently, the theory of elephants communicating with seismic waves had not been tested...Like whales, elephants have large middle-ear bones that are designed to detect very low frequency sounds. They can use their unique ear structure along with other body features to detect subtle vibrations. O’Connell observed elephants in a “tiptoeing posture,” or shifting their weight onto the tips of their toes or rocking back on the heel, just before a group would run off in alarm. She later concluded that fatty pads in their feet helped conduct vibrations from their toes, through the body, up to their ears. This is possible through what she calls “bone conducted hearing.”


Like whales, elephants have large middle-ear bones that are designed to detect very low frequency sounds. They can use their unique ear structure along with other body features to detect subtle vibrations. O’Connell observed elephants in a “tiptoeing posture,” or shifting their weight onto the tips of their toes or rocking back on the heel, just before a group would run off in alarm. She later concluded that fatty pads in their feet helped conduct vibrations from their toes, through the body, up to their ears. This is possible through what she calls “bone conducted hearing.”



http://zoology.suite...on_in_elephants - 37k -

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 June 2009 - 07:38 PM

You also have to consider that pakicetus does not have the inner ear of a whale,which is different from terrestrial mammals that are designed for low frequency hearing.

Arguments for this theory hinge on whether Pakicetus had the hearing of a land-dwelling or a marine mammal. Newly recovered jaw and middle-ear bones strongly indicate that Pakicetus was not well adapted for underwater hearing, says paleontologist Hans Thewissen of Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C. Thewissen discussed the new Pakicetus fossils and their implications at last week's meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Toronto, Canada...

A decade ago, paleontologist Phillip D. Gingerich at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor first described Pakicetus. Based on a reconstruction of the creature's skull, Gingerich determined that Pakicetus did not seem to have the necessary equipment for underwater hearing. Also, the whale ancestor's remains were found with those of land mammals. This evidence suggested that Pakicetus had an amphibious life-style.

The new fossils strongly confirm Gingerich's theory. They show that Pakicetus had very narrow channels in the back of its jaw, making it quite unable to accommodate the large fat pads characteristic of cetaceans, explains Thewissen. The structure of the middle-ear bones -- the first recovered for Pakicetus -- are also decidedly uncetanean, Thewissen notes.


Wiki. is very biased and will even edit/delete research papers from evolutionists if it does'nt fit their worldview.


Thanks.

#17 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 June 2009 - 09:24 PM

An active imagination is a very important - perhaps the most important - part of the evolutionists toolkit. Let's look at a frank confession of this, courtesy of one Philip D. Gingerich. In the January, 1995 issue of Discover magazine (1994 The Top 75 Science Stories). On page 84 we read an item by Carl Zimmer:
First, forget about the veracity of the interpretation of these fossils in particular or evolutionary theory in general; what does this say about science as it is practiced by the modern-day evolutionary establishment? This is a damning admission from a prominent practitioner of the 'evolutionary arts'; the fact that he felt free to offer it and that Discover apparently had no qualms about either the statement itself or publishing it speaks volumes.

Now, a few more things about this confession:

1- Since when is it acceptable scientific practice to 'make it up'? This man should have been run out of the science establishment on a rail; of course he wasn't - because they all do it.

2- Why were they 'making it up' before? He explains in the next sentence; because they 'had to'.

3- Why did he (and his fellow travelers) 'have to make it up'? Well, in a practical sense, because they didn't have any evidence before. But why did they feel such evidence was so necessary as to 'making it up'? I would say it was because their faith - and the need to convince the public - demanded it. The ends justify the means.

4- I've often wondered what the state of opinion regarding Rodhocetus is within the establishment these days. If Rodhocetus has fallen out of favor, is Gingerich and his colleagues back to telling tall tales about whales? I'll have to look into it.

5- Since it is conceded in the piece that '...there are many more primitive whales to be discovered', should we expect more bedtime stories? Such stories may be a bit less...extravagant...as ' the evolutionary case is now closed', but surely these gaps need filled with something don't they? A little something to tide the faithful over until the 'evidence' is found?

6 - Is the assertion that 'the evolutionary case is now closed' another story?

7- Given that such story telling is acceptable practice in evolutionary 'science', what other stories have we been told in the past? What tall tales are they spinning today while they wait for the evidence to appear?

8- These same people have the gall to poke fun at creationists for believing in the 'religious stories' found in the bible! It seems to me that these evolutionary stories, being motivated by faith (the substance of things not seen - in this case fossil evidence), are at least as religious as those found in the bible.

9 - If a creationist had said this in print (much less in a widely disseminated publication), it would be forever used as proof that creationists 'don't do science, they just tell stories'.

There is a lot to be gleaned from this little story in an old issue of Discover - I'm glad I kept it.

View Post

A keen eye when reading, and a keen mind when assessing what they say - these are priceless.

That quote is so telling, I expect there are some who'd like to believe it's bogus. Did what I could to track down online verification.

http://www.soapchat....01&postcount=40

http://www.asa3.org/...05-10/0519.html

http://www.asa3.org/...05-10/0247.html

That first link is an evolutionist, proud of the accomplishment. It includes a dead link; apparently the article was available online at one time. The other two are both in a context where the probability of challenge would be fairly high, had there been any monkey business.

The cyberspace evidence here is stronger than I expected. Individuals can resort to public libraries, of course.

#18 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 10 June 2009 - 02:03 AM

A keen eye when reading, and a keen mind when assessing what they say - these are priceless.

That quote is so telling, I expect there are some who'd like to believe it's bogus. Did what I could to track down online verification.

http://www.soapchat....01&postcount=40

http://www.asa3.org/...05-10/0519.html

http://www.asa3.org/...05-10/0247.html

That first link is an evolutionist, proud of the accomplishment. It includes a dead link; apparently the article was available online at one time. The other two are both in a context where the probability of challenge would be fairly high, had there been any monkey business.

The cyberspace evidence here is stronger than I expected. Individuals can resort to public libraries, of course.

View Post

I did a search and found the same links - not much out there - I have no no doubt that it will be claimed that it is bogus. I could scan the page and post the image, but then it would be claimed that I doctored it. Like you said, they can go to the public library, I just wonder if they would have a 14-1/2 year old issue of Discover. Again, I'm glad I kept it.

#19 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 10 June 2009 - 02:29 AM

2- Why were they 'making it up' before? He explains in the next sentence; because they 'had to'.

3- Why did he (and his fellow travelers) 'have to make it up'? Well, in a practical sense, because they didn't have any evidence before. But why did they feel such evidence was so necessary as to 'making it up'? I would say it was because their faith - and the need to convince the public - demanded it. The ends justify the means.

View Post

We've been told for the longest time now that the evidence for evolution is very strong. If so, why the need to 'make it up' about whale evolution? Was the other evidence so weak that they need another sequence to buttress what they already had? I'd say Gingerich's confession is also an admission of evolution's weakness.

#20 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 10 June 2009 - 04:16 AM

Gingerich's confession sheds light on why evolutionists so rabidly protest teaching both the strengths and the weaknesses of evolutionary theory. They want to teach the strengths and then be free to tell tall tales about the rest...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users