Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Whales And Dolphins Have Lungs And Not Gills?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#21 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 11:10 AM

Is this really the best you can do? Ask for evidence, and then either refuse to view or believe the evidence when it is presented?

Yes they do exist, follow the talkorigins link where they are discussed (at length).

View Post


I already read the talkorigins link, and plus I also have a National Geographic article on Whale evolution... Actually I may have several.

Is the best you can do is suppose we haven't read your links?

#22 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 11:38 AM

I already read the talkorigins link, and plus I also have a National Geographic article on Whale evolution... Actually I may have several.

Is the best you can do is suppose we haven't read your links?

View Post


Well, the fossils are described in that link.

#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 20 December 2009 - 11:52 AM

Evolution. See the OP for a couple of links.

View Post

Evolution is a sticky word. Are you simply talking about change over time or the actual point of contention; the assumption that all organisms derive from a common 'simple' organism sometime in the distant past? I would like to hedge off any equivocal arguments, if possible.

Your OP asks:

Why Do Whales And Dolphins Have Lungs And Not Gills?

What's scientifically wrong with the answer that they were designed that way to give glory to God? Showing us the 'evidence' that is supposed to 'demonstrate' a linage of land animals to aquatic mammals does the more appropriate task of exposing the religious foundation to evolution. Again, before we rehash oft repeated arguments why don't you join the threads that already have this topic well in play?

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 20 December 2009 - 11:56 AM

Is this really the best you can do? Ask for evidence, and then either refuse to view or believe the evidence when it is presented?

View Post

I think what Scott is saying is that evolution resides in the gaps. The missing links are a staple when they are received as missing. Evolutionists don't really have any expectation to fill in the fossil record they simply want to declare that their belief about missing links is justified. I'm sure you've heard the charge of 'God of the gaps'. Well, the argument you're committing to is Evolution of The Gaps.

#25 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 12:07 PM

I think what Scott is saying is that evolution resides in the gaps. The missing links are a staple when they are received as missing. Evolutionists don't really have any expectation to fill in the fossil record they simply want to declare that their belief about missing links is justified. I'm sure you've heard the charge of 'God of the gaps'. Well, the argument you're committing to is Evolution of The Gaps.

View Post


I take your point, but there will always be gaps in the fossil record, because very few corpses fossilise. Whenever a gap is plugged, it creates two more gaps - one on either side. But there are multiple lines of evidence, not just fossils, as you can see in the TO link. Taken together, they provide compelling evidence.

Even if you had a cine film of the evolution of the whale, someone could always argue that gaps exist at 25 frames per second!

#26 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:07 PM

You seem angry.

Spouting's a great word in the context of whales. What aspect of the multiple lines of evidence supporting whale evolution do you dispute?

And do you have any alternative evidence other than "it says so in the Bible"?

View Post

You seem to want people to think I'm emotional. I do try to have fun.

One way of doing this is to show nonsense to be nonsense.

Adam said

Whales were made on Day 5 after their kind.  :)  The evidence is that we will always see whales producing whales. You know what? That's exactly what is observed. :o

View Post

You responded

Since we can't observe the future, we can't back up a comment like that one. Whales might evolve in the future, or go extinct.

View Post

I pointed out that this objection is utterly bogus. The lack of capacity to observe the future has no bearing on whether or not Adam is correct, and everyone knows it. You responded with a bunch of words which did not even attempt to justify the objection. Even now you cannot demonstrate any validity.

So instead, you try to divert attention by rambling about other things. I think the funny here is pretty well played-out now. Perhaps I am mistaken and you have some amusement left to offer. Ramble on.

#27 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:20 PM

I pointed out that this objection is utterly bogus. The lack of capacity to observe the future has no bearing on whether or not Adam is correct, and everyone knows it. You responded with a bunch of words which did not even attempt to justify the objection. Even now you cannot demonstrate any validity.

View Post


Of course it isn't bogus, because Adam said "we will always see whales producing whales", implying a capacity to see far into the future.

In fact, we may very well not see whales producing whales in the future because they might go extinct, or evolve.

#28 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:48 PM

Of course it isn't bogus, because Adam said "we will always see whales producing whales", implying a capacity to see far into the future.

In fact, we may very well not see whales producing whales in the future because they might go extinct, or evolve.

View Post


But the fact remains that the fossil record does not contain Whale transitionals. Talk origins has failed at this, and so has National Geographic.

Whale evolution is nothing more than a fanciful atheist fairytale.

#29 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:49 PM

Well, the fossils are described in that link.

View Post


But the fossils are not accurate transitionals either.

#30 OldStyle Blues

OldStyle Blues

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:01 PM

But the fossils are not accurate transitionals either.

Why? Evidence please.

#31 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:08 PM

Why? Evidence please.

View Post


Ah just have a look for yourself. The whales they call transitinals are laughable at best. Besides, they aren't even good representations. I know they aren't transitionals simply by looking at them.

You can have your own evo-opinion.

#32 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:13 PM

But the fact remains that the fossil record does not contain Whale transitionals. Talk origins has failed at this, and so has National Geographic.

Whale evolution is nothing more than a fanciful atheist fairytale.

View Post


You saying so doesn't make it so. What is wrong with the transitionals, Scott?

#33 OldStyle Blues

OldStyle Blues

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:21 PM

The whales they call transitinals are laughable at best.

In what way? How? Why?

Besides, they aren't even good representations.

Why? Why aren't they good representations? What is a good representation?

I know they aren't transitionals simply by looking at them.

Really? How? What is it about them that "aren't transitionals"?

#34 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:55 PM

You saying so doesn't make it so. What is wrong with the transitionals, Scott?

View Post


You have to show that they actually are transitionals, which you have not done.

#35 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:56 PM

In what way? How? Why?  Why? Why aren't they good representations? What is a good representation?   Really? How? What is it about  them that "aren't transitionals"?

View Post


First you have to show that they actually are transitionals (which you have not done), because evolutionist are the ones making the claims that they are transitionals.

#36 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 20 December 2009 - 09:45 PM

Of course it isn't bogus, because Adam said "we will always see whales producing whales", implying a capacity to see far into the future.

In fact, we may very well not see whales producing whales in the future because they might go extinct, or evolve.

View Post

That implication is not there. You deliberately misinterpret what Adam said, most shamelessly and incompetently. You fool a grand total of zero witnesses.

You are being added to my ignore list.

Here is what Adam said, in full context.

In the meantime, can you kindly summarise the evidence behind the Theory of Creationism, as applied to whales, for me?

Whales were made on Day 5 after their kind. :rolleyes: The evidence is that we will always see whales producing whales. You know what? That's exactly what is observed. B)

View Post



#37 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 28 December 2009 - 09:26 AM

you're committing to is Evolution of The Gaps.

View Post


LOL

#38 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 28 December 2009 - 09:33 AM

LOL

View Post

Hi Bruce,

Sorry, I have to do this, but your post is against forum rules. Add a relevant comment to your 'LOL' next time, okay? :)

#39 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 December 2009 - 10:38 AM

Does The Theory of Creation have a parallel explanation, with evidence?

View Post


Absolutely! But, more to the point; your question asked "Why Do Whales And Dolphins Have Lungs And Not Gills?"
Answer: because that's the way god created them!

Now, here’s the really cool part; evolutionists have nothing but a priori opinion (not empirical evidence, nor any evidence using the scientific method) for any of this. And, evolutionists attempt to say that they “know that the whale has evolved from land mammals over the course of millions of years”, but they do this with absolutely no evidence. And they conveniently forget that (according to the evolutionary model) that the whale ancestor first had to come from the water, before they went back to the water!

So, what happened? They didn’t like land after all? They decided, this dry land stuff stinks, I’m going back to the sea? If that’s the case, wouldn’t this actually be de-evolution?

#40 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 December 2009 - 10:43 AM

In fact, we may very well not see whales producing whales in the future because they might go extinct, or evolve.

View Post


Sorry, that's not a fact, it’s nothing more than a guess. Adams opinion is based on inductive evidences (i.e. we have seen over and over again, whales producing after their own kind. And have NEVER observed anything differently) and is therefore FAR more substantial than the unsupported proposition you are attempting to pass off as fact here.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users