J
Jet Black
Guest
Matthew777 said:
well all you are doing then is spamming. your post lacked content and you hadn'e even read what was said
Upvote
0
Whale Evolution, a tail of a wail.
- Thread starter Arikay
- Start date
well all you are doing then is spamming. your post lacked content and you hadn'e even read what was said
Karl - Liberal Backslider
Senior Veteran
- Jul 16, 2003
- 4,157
- 297
- 56
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Squid's eyes do not look like human ones. They have some superior aspects.
As to your second phrase, let me get this clear before I call you as a lying hound - are you still persisting with the claim that only humans and dogs have a prostate gland, even though you've been told this isn't true?
Just need to know whether you're a serious poster or just another disgraceful creationist lying git.
Upvote
0
Karl...just because we both have similar organs, morphological features, and genetic structure doesn't mean we are related in some way!!
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Yes it is true that life originated in the oceans/seas, and then evolved to exploit the land. This is why we have salt water in our veins afterall. Some terrestrial forms, however, evolved to live back in the water. These include not only mammals (whales) but also reptiles (such as icthyosaurs, pleisosaurs and mosasaurs).JohnR7 said:
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Well John, if all the different lines of evidence provided in this thread do not convince you, then all I can say is that you will (as you say) never be convinced.JohnR7 said:
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
Excuse me for asking, but how could you ever say that? It would seem rather intellectually dishonest for me to say, "I will never believe that." It explicitly implies that I am absolutely unwilling to consider that I might be wrong!JohnR7 said:
I certainly don't claim that I'm always right, but it baffles me how somebody could announce that they will never change their mind on a scientific claim. I mean, as an extreme case, if Split Rock was told directly by God (with millions of witnesses) that whales were descendant from land mammals, then divinely directed to one complete fossil for every thousand years of evolution, wouldn't you be convinced?
Of course it's an extreme case, but isn't there something less extreme (whatever that may be) that could convince you? Perhaps study of how exactly scientists make connections between fossils based on characteristics? (hint: they don't just say, "Hey! This one's the same funny shape!")
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Deamiter said:
Genesis 1:20-25
Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." [21] So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." [23] So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
[24] Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. [25] And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
I can say it because the "great sea creatures" were created on the 5 th day and the cattle were created on the 6 th day.
Why would God ever tell anyone anything that conflicts with what He told Moses?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
JohnR7 said:
Maybe he didn't tell Moses. Maybe Moses couldn't understand, so he told him a story! I can just imagine it:
God: And so, 4.6 billion years ago I created this Earth, after many long billions of years of universal devlopment from the big bang (which caused itself by the way...genius work I might add). Hehe, the cool thing is, Mose, that life only began as these little simple replicating proteins, and then over billions of years grew into these massive dinosaur creatures, and fish, and whales...and so I....blah blah blah
Moses: what's a billion?
God: what? oh...right, you're a primitive savage...ok, here we go. So in the beginning I created the heavens and the earth, right? And get this....
Upvote
0
Asimov said:
Primitive savaage? your evolutionary mindset if befuddling you.
Have you ever read the book of Job, with its description of dinosaurs? this was written long before paleontology was an essential science? HIs grasp of astronomy?
His understanding of the world, of philosophy, etc - is outstanding, even as shown in one short book.
The problem with evys as a whole, is that they have no idea just what the Bible says, nor how advanced manking was in the beginning od time.
Surely the literary evidence could convince one with an open mind to the fact that in anything we as a race have suffered from the law of thermodynamics - we have atrophied, devolved, disassembled. No dissassemble . . . (sorry, that last bit was my grandaughter)
You might of couse be right if man did evolve, which he didn't - man was never finer than in his first generation !!!!!
So there !!
Upvote
0
Jimmy The Hand
I Have Been Complexified!
Wow.
Evolutionists don't know anything about the Bible statement and a complete lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics in a single post.
I love those daily doubles.
Evolutionists don't know anything about the Bible statement and a complete lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics in a single post.
I love those daily doubles.
Upvote
0
Self Improvement
Well-Known Member
- Jun 24, 2004
- 1,676
- 74
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Yes, Moses was a savage. Maybe YOU should read the bible, eh?
Really now, what does that have to do with anything?
Nana nana boo boo!
Upvote
0
paulrob said:
Yep.
Description of dinosaurs? There's no description of dinosaurs that I'm aware of in Job. There is nothing amazing about astronomy either.[/b]
mmmhmmmm....more unsupported assertions....
riiiight...did I say mankind? No, I said Moses.
Oooh, 2LoT misrepresentation, interesting....more unsupported assertions...
wow...I'm a believer.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Third section.
Response to True origins.
true origins paper #1
The Overselling of Whale Evolution
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp
Mesonychids to Archaeocetes
I would agree here, from what I've seen there isn't a solid amount of fossils for the whale-mesonychid connection, especially since DNA evidence suggests they split from the mesonychids early than they thought. Of course mesonychids are generally considered a run up to the start of the whale transitionals (starting with Pakicetus) so there really isn't much to talk about here.
Amphibious Archaeocete to Fully Marine Archaeocete
The main argument they use is the exact dating of whale fossils. Ironically they have half the answer on their site but seem to ignore it.
It is quite possible that one species split off of the earlier one and both continued at the same time. So fossil finds could over lap but that doesn't pose a problem. Dating is also not an exact method and gives a margin of error which would effect the accuracy of the claim that these fossils are being found close together. Unfortunately no solid data is given.
Indeed, the tremendous size difference between Basilosaurinae and protocetids casts doubt on that hypothesis.* All protocetids were less than ten feet long, whereas Basilosaurus cetoides was over 80 feet in length, and Basilosaurus isis was over 50 feet.[27]* It has been calculated that, even in a rapidly evolving line, changes in size are usually on the order of only 1-10% per million years.[28]
Most people tend to forget dorudons which lived at the same time and were much smaller but share similar characteristics. What is also often ignored are the two tiny legs still present on the basilosaurus. Basilosaurus is thought to be one of the first wide spread whales.
I would doubt the growth numbers were meant to be taken as solid fact by Mayr. Without further details I would also doubt they have much baring on an aquatic animal who's size has been slowly increasing. Being one of the first fully aquatic whales, factors that limit size on land no longer apply and the whale can get as big as the environment will allow. In the water being larger can also protect against attacks.
Archaeocetes to Modern Cetaceans
They start out with a quote from 1945 and another from 1965 to show that experts don't think archaeoceti are directly related to modern whales. You would think that if that is still true today it would be possible to find some new quotes, unless zero new evidence has been found, and we know that isn't the case. They answer their own problem, "The current leaders in the field believe that archaeocetes were ancestral to modern whales, but there is no agreement on which family of archaeocetes was involved."
It is common for scientists to not agree on the direct lineage. The problem is that we just don't have enough evidence to get an easy fix on the details. However, the scientists are arguing the details and not whether or not there is a clear transition.
Conclusion
There seems to be nothing here refuting the whale evolution, only questioning how exact the details are.
Response to True origins.
true origins paper #1
The Overselling of Whale Evolution
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp
Mesonychids to Archaeocetes
I would agree here, from what I've seen there isn't a solid amount of fossils for the whale-mesonychid connection, especially since DNA evidence suggests they split from the mesonychids early than they thought. Of course mesonychids are generally considered a run up to the start of the whale transitionals (starting with Pakicetus) so there really isn't much to talk about here.
Amphibious Archaeocete to Fully Marine Archaeocete
The main argument they use is the exact dating of whale fossils. Ironically they have half the answer on their site but seem to ignore it.
"It is important to understand that, in calling these creatures a series of transitional fossils, the evolutionist does not mean that they form an actual lineage of ancestors and descendants.* On the contrary, they readily acknowledge that these archaeocetes cannot be strung in procession from ancestor to descendant in a scala naturae.[17 ]"
The transitional fossil set of whales may not be a direct lineage and evolution is best described as a branching tree or bush, one species doesn't always turn completely into another but many branchings happen.It is quite possible that one species split off of the earlier one and both continued at the same time. So fossil finds could over lap but that doesn't pose a problem. Dating is also not an exact method and gives a margin of error which would effect the accuracy of the claim that these fossils are being found close together. Unfortunately no solid data is given.
Indeed, the tremendous size difference between Basilosaurinae and protocetids casts doubt on that hypothesis.* All protocetids were less than ten feet long, whereas Basilosaurus cetoides was over 80 feet in length, and Basilosaurus isis was over 50 feet.[27]* It has been calculated that, even in a rapidly evolving line, changes in size are usually on the order of only 1-10% per million years.[28]
Most people tend to forget dorudons which lived at the same time and were much smaller but share similar characteristics. What is also often ignored are the two tiny legs still present on the basilosaurus. Basilosaurus is thought to be one of the first wide spread whales.
I would doubt the growth numbers were meant to be taken as solid fact by Mayr. Without further details I would also doubt they have much baring on an aquatic animal who's size has been slowly increasing. Being one of the first fully aquatic whales, factors that limit size on land no longer apply and the whale can get as big as the environment will allow. In the water being larger can also protect against attacks.
Archaeocetes to Modern Cetaceans
They start out with a quote from 1945 and another from 1965 to show that experts don't think archaeoceti are directly related to modern whales. You would think that if that is still true today it would be possible to find some new quotes, unless zero new evidence has been found, and we know that isn't the case. They answer their own problem, "The current leaders in the field believe that archaeocetes were ancestral to modern whales, but there is no agreement on which family of archaeocetes was involved."
It is common for scientists to not agree on the direct lineage. The problem is that we just don't have enough evidence to get an easy fix on the details. However, the scientists are arguing the details and not whether or not there is a clear transition.
Conclusion
There seems to be nothing here refuting the whale evolution, only questioning how exact the details are.
Upvote
0
J
Jazer
Guest
We are told in Gen 8 " the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" That is why Paul talks about: 2 Cor 10(KJV) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,058
- 16,810
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
idscience
Regular Member
Here is a whale lineage chart with three so called transitional whales sporting tail flukes, starting with rochocetus. Philip Gingerich, Professor of Funny business and Environmental Sciences and Whale fossil finder extraordinaire, just put it on the drawings as the fossil has no end of the tail. He said he imagined that is what it looked like.
The next one (Gaviocetus) was a total fabrication from a rib bone and two vertebrae. Now there is some good science for ya. As you can see, the nice smooth transitional evidence for the whale is all washed up.
Gingerich says, ambucetus is off the line since its a crocodile not a whale. Mesonychids are out as well Gingerich says and dalanistes is older than the 49 mya fully aquatic whale fossil, so that just about does it. Clear case of making the evidence fit the hypothesis. Bias, seeing what it wants to see.
The next one (Gaviocetus) was a total fabrication from a rib bone and two vertebrae. Now there is some good science for ya. As you can see, the nice smooth transitional evidence for the whale is all washed up.
Gingerich says, ambucetus is off the line since its a crocodile not a whale. Mesonychids are out as well Gingerich says and dalanistes is older than the 49 mya fully aquatic whale fossil, so that just about does it. Clear case of making the evidence fit the hypothesis. Bias, seeing what it wants to see.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
