Evolution of whales

[mikeynov]

In an original spectrum of life, the complete creation would fill the gaps we now have as a result of the flood, and other extinctions. Predicting that some creatures would have ear chambers, or whatnot further in or out, is not rocket science. Giving the credit to some imagined evolution, instead of creator is baseless, and only a statement of faith, or belief. It doesn't prove whales evolved from wolve like creatures or whatever, but that there were no gaps in the original creation, like now, in a sin and flood decimated one! Not at all, in the slightest.

This is laughably revisionist. Over the past two centuries, special creationists have claimed precisely contrary to what you now ad-hoc redefine the "creationist" position to be. Special creation predicts 0 transitional fossils, and fish-amphibians, amphibian-reptiles, reptile-mammals and reptile-birds (examples of which were provided in this very thread) are all devastating for special creationism, which is why so many creationist institutions claim they don't exist (e.g. AIG, ICR, etc).

That you now redefine all evidence as "God made it that way" shows the utter vacuity of your nonsensical worldview.

 

[dad]

This is laughably revisionist. Over the past two centuries, special creationists have claimed precisely contrary to what you now ad-hoc redefine the "creationist" position to be. Special creation predicts 0 transitional fossils, and fish-amphibians, amphibian-reptiles, reptile-mammals and reptile-birds (examples of which were provided in this very thread) are all devastating for special creationism, which is why so many creationist institutions claim they don't exist (e.g. AIG, ICR, etc).

That you now redefine all evidence as "God made it that way" shows the utter vacuity of your nonsensical worldview.

Sorry to spoil the fun, just when you thought some former so called creation believers were licked! A transition fossil would be one where a transition occured. If the creation spectrum was simply wider, why then a fossil representing this would be better called a creation fossil now wouldn't it? So any created creatures that were somewhat like two different ones now would not mean either evolved to or from them at all, which pulls the rug right out from evoistic arguements, now doesn't it?
I claim that transitional fossils do not exist either, unless it can be demonstrated, and then I would kook at it, with much bible and creation ammo at my disposal to wonderfully explain any quirks. Meanwhile, I see no transitional fossils at all, only active evo imaginations. Trying to use extinct creations as some weird links to granny.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Dad - address why there are transitional - as in between fish and amphibian, whether you consider them transitional or not - fossils found where evolutionary theory predicts them to be, and never where it doesn't - for example no mammal/bird transitionals.

If God just happened to make things like Ichthyostega and Archaeopteryx, but never a mammal-bird, He clearly wanted us to think they'd evolved. I think we should do what He wants.

 

[dad]

Dad - address why there are transitional - as in between fish and amphibian, whether you consider them transitional or not - fossils found where evolutionary theory predicts them to be, and never where it doesn't - for example no mammal/bird transitionals.

If God just happened to make things like Ichthyostega and Archaeopteryx, but never a mammal-bird, He clearly wanted us to think they'd evolved. I think we should do what He wants.

How could I comment on the inspiration of the evo theory, and why it predicted anything? If I were to say it was ill inspired would that be in keeping with the rules of the forum here, lad? No, so why should I hazard a guess at why they do what they do ? Why would evoists be smart enough to realize that mammals did not look like birds? Well, I don't think they do look much like them either myself! Now why did they put glue to feathers, and see a similarity beween other things? For the life o me, it's hard to say. Almost like someone was back there, and knew a few of the departed ones, if we didn't know better, eh, son? But since we're not sayin that, and trying to revert to the ol spiritual here, I guess we'll have to say I don't rightly know how the evos came up with what they say they came up with. What I can say, is God came up wit one better!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Translation - you don't know and don't care.

 

[dad]

Translation - you don't know and don't care.

No, translation: There was a complete creation, and some things went missing into extiction. We can't take one of these missing things, and presume it to be some missing links to evolution. Just because evos 'predicted' some things were missing!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No, translation: There was a complete creation, and some things went missing into extiction. We can't take one of these missing things, and presume it to be some missing links to evolution. Just because evos 'predicted' some things were missing!

Why the inverted commas round "predicted"? We predicted Acanthostega should exist. We found it. We predict that no such creature linking say snakes and turtles should exist. We haven't found one.

 

[dad]

Why the inverted commas round "predicted"? We predicted Acanthostega should exist. We found it. We predict that no such creature linking say snakes and turtles should exist. We haven't found one.

I guess we'll see. But there were flying dinosaurs , or at least what used to be called that, probably around the time of the predictions. Were there any flying snakes, or turtles? Then why would we expect evos to claim birds came from turtles?

 

[Jet Black]

please stop encouraging this wanton destruction of threads.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I guess we'll see. But there were flying dinosaurs , or at least what used to be called that, probably around the time of the predictions. Were there any flying snakes, or turtles? Then why would we expect evos to claim birds came from turtles?

The "flying dinosaurs" as you call them, or rather Pterosaurs, which have never been called dinosaurs and always known to be a different group, are not proposed to have evolved into birds. It was the real dinosaurs that did that.

As such your point is irrelevant. We didn't predict birds evolved from dinosaurs because some dinosaurs flew - they didn't. We predicted it because early birds contained dinosaurian features.

And what have birds to do with snakes or turtles? My point, which you missed by miles, was that there are no transitional fossils between snakes and turtles, and evolution predicts that there shouldn't be, because it is not thought that one evolved from the other.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The "flying dinosaurs" as you call them, or rather Pterosaurs, which have never been called dinosaurs and always known to be a different group, are not proposed to have evolved into birds. It was the real dinosaurs that did that.

As such your point is irrelevant. We didn't predict birds evolved from dinosaurs because some dinosaurs flew - they didn't. We predicted it because early birds contained dinosaurian features.

And what have birds to do with snakes or turtles? My point, which you missed by miles, was that there are no transitional fossils between snakes and turtles, and evolution predicts that there shouldn't be, because it is not thought that one evolved from the other.

Just as a side note, are there any other fossils thought to be transitional between reptiles and birds other than Archy?

 

[mikeynov]

Just as a side note, are there any other fossils thought to be transitional between reptiles and birds other than Archy?

Yes.

Also, not sure how recently the above has been updated as there's been a couple/new finds in that department in the very recent past. Aron-Ra is the guy to ask for specific examples as he's Captain Transitional™.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yes.

Also, not sure how recently the above has been updated as there's been a couple/new finds in that department in the very recent past. Aron-Ra is the guy to ask for specific examples as he's Captain Transitional™.

thanks for the link.

 

[dad]

The "flying dinosaurs" as you call them, or rather Pterosaurs, which have never been called dinosaurs and always known to be a different group, are not proposed to have evolved into birds. It was the real dinosaurs that did that.

As such your point is irrelevant. We didn't predict birds evolved from dinosaurs because some dinosaurs flew - they didn't. We predicted it because early birds contained dinosaurian features.
[So you say, and thats fair enough. Now in schools years ago, I don't remember the differentiation. In fact, some teachers taught that they were a flying dinosaur. ( I seem to remember them calling it something like teradactyl) Now then, you say 'early birds' contained this or that. But what makes the early birds, I would contend is only in the imagination of evoist thinkers. A misunderstsnding of the fossil record, for one thing, and presumption of evolution, rather than creation for another. If you look at these types of creatures as extinct creations that bridge a gap in the complete creation spectrum, now missing, then I think we have a better picture. Just because they are kinda like dinos, or birds, does not mean anything evolved from anything. It just means someone projects a philosophy that omits the creator into the creation record!]

And what have birds to do with snakes or turtles? My point, which you missed by miles, was that there are no transitional fossils between snakes and turtles, and evolution predicts that there shouldn't be, because it is not thought that one evolved from the other.
[And why is it not thought? Perhaps because they are not missing much or any of the spectrum in these water friendly creatures, and they don't have gaps they can say 'kinda look like' some bridge between them? Or some such more creation acknowledging reason.

.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The "flying dinosaurs" as you call them, or rather Pterosaurs, which have never been called dinosaurs and always known to be a different group, are not proposed to have evolved into birds. It was the real dinosaurs that did that.

As such your point is irrelevant. We didn't predict birds evolved from dinosaurs because some dinosaurs flew - they didn't. We predicted it because early birds contained dinosaurian features.
[So you say, and thats fair enough. Now in schools years ago, I don't remember the differentiation. In fact, some teachers taught that they were a flying dinosaur. ( I seem to remember them calling it something like teradactyl)

The scientific illiteracy of your school teachers is neither here nor there. Pterosaurs, including Pterodactyls, were never considered dinosaurs by the scientific establishment. They are too anatomically different. OK, I wouldn't like to swear to classification in the 1880s, but in living memory, no, never considered dinosaurs.

Now then, you say 'early birds' contained this or that. But what makes the early birds, I would contend is only in the imagination of evoist thinkers.

No. How about feathers? Perching feet? Hollow bones? Nice birdlike features there.

A misunderstsnding of the fossil record, for one thing, and presumption of evolution, rather than creation for another. If you look at these types of creatures as extinct creations that bridge a gap in the complete creation spectrum, now missing, then I think we have a better picture. Just because they are kinda like dinos, or birds, does not mean anything evolved from anything. It just means someone projects a philosophy that omits the creator into the creation record!

But evolution doesn't say whether God is the creator or not. This "omits the creator" bit is absolutel nonsense. Science doesn't comment on supernatural creators; it neither affirms nor denies their existence.

And what have birds to do with snakes or turtles? My point, which you missed by miles, was that there are no transitional fossils between snakes and turtles, and evolution predicts that there shouldn't be, because it is not thought that one evolved from the other.
[And why is it not thought? Perhaps because they are not missing much or any of the spectrum in these water friendly creatures, and they don't have gaps they can say 'kinda look like' some bridge between them? Or some such more creation acknowledging reason.

No. Anatomical and genetic analysis shows that they evolved from a common ancestor a long time before either of them became recognisably snakes or turtles. You really insult mainstream scientists the way you glibly talk about them as if they are just making guesses out of thin air. I'd be extremely offended were I an evolutionary biologist, and insisting on an apology for your disparaging insults.

 

[dad]

No. How about feathers? Perching feet? Hollow bones? Nice birdlike features there.
[Nebuchanezar grew feathers, like eagels feathers, does that mean he was a bird? Birdlike features do not a bird make, apparently, as bats have birdlike features, yet are considered something else. But what if there were a whole genus, I think you call it that was in between that went extinct? So what? Where does it get written in stone that something adapted or evolved into birds from these?]



But evolution doesn't say whether God is the creator or not. This "omits the creator" bit is absolutel nonsense.
[ Well, look at an evo textbook. Get out a magnifying glass, and see where you find God anywhere in there! If He is the creator, He ought be front and center! No, He is shunned, and ommited, and His word virtually insulted, to boot, in that He didn't really make man, or the garden, or the stars, etc.] Science doesn't comment on supernatural creators; it neither affirms nor denies their existence. [It denies the world was created by God in a week, and God blew life into man, made him from the dirt, etc etc. It's very essence is precisely that, and those who lean toward the spiritual think it is by design. ]



No. Anatomical and genetic analysis shows that they evolved from a common ancestor a long time before either of them became recognisably snakes or turtles. [ Really? I think not. genetical assumptions, maybe. Anotomical evo catagorizations, that try to imagine it that way, maybe. But nothing shows that they came from a common ancestor. You really insult bible believers here. It is high time you, and the mainstream handwavers come clean, an offer a tearful, sincere apology!] You really insult mainstream scientists the way you glibly talk about them as if they are just making guesses out of thin air. I'd be extremely offended were I an evolutionary biologist, and insisting on an apology for your disparaging insults. [Could I count on them holding their breath?]

.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

dad, can you give me one example of any science text book of any kind that pays tribute to God?

Pick up a text book for physics, or astronomy, or nursing, or geology. Do you expect there to be any reference to God? Read up on how a rainbow if formed from light refracting through water droplets, and I doubt you will see any mention of Noah's rainbow.

Maybe that means ALL science denies God. Maybe all science is athiestic and BAD. Best for you to get away from all this evil athiestic science, and go live in a cave and eat berries and wild honey and catch salmon with a pointy stick. You might be cold and miserable, but at least you would be sticking to your principles.

Good luck.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Anyone care to explain the evolution of the whale? Just out of curiosity, I want to know what the theory of how a mammal became a waterbound creature.

Did a land creature decide to return to the sea?

Or did a fish creature evolve into a mammal?

what theories are there for this?

Has anyone shown you my page on this yet?
http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/CetaceanEvolution.html

 

[nvxplorer]

I really don't understand this insistence on God being in science textbooks. Isn't that what religion is for. There are only so many things the Bible deals with. For example, what is God's opinion on the interstate highway system? Where can I find that in the Bible? Should I expect theistic questions on my driving test?

How 'bout we leave science to the scientists and religion to the preachers.

 

[dad]

dad, can you give me one example of any science text book of any kind that pays tribute to God?

Pick up a text book for physics, or astronomy, or nursing, or geology. Do you expect there to be any reference to God? Read up on how a rainbow if formed from light refracting through water droplets, and I doubt you will see any mention of Noah's rainbow.

Maybe that means ALL science denies God. Maybe all science is athiestic and BAD. Best for you to get away from all this evil athiestic science, and go live in a cave and eat berries and wild honey and catch salmon with a pointy stick. You might be cold and miserable, but at least you would be sticking to your principles.

Good luck.

Nice try to claim science for your arguements. If I pick up a textbook an astronomy, and see the universe explained from a big bang standpoint, based on a mountain of assumptions, and brushing off God, or a creation, I say that is a belief system foisted on me. There is no reason to not believe God made everything as He said, when He said. The only logic given is assuming there is no spiritual, and proceeding from there, into the mystic!
Why would I assume that if the universe was expanding, that it must have expanded from a speck? Because they simply keep going back beyond when it started or was created, in their backwards extrapolations, till it reaches nothing. So, science says it is expanding, this is good. Even the bible talks about the heavens being stretched like a curtain! But we cannot assume time that never existed, and go clear back into some insane speck! This is not science. Light from stars can take billions of light years, in theory, if there were that much time, to get here at the speed light now travels. But there was not the time. Light, pre split behaved like spiritual light, and did not take time as now to get here at all. This is a pretty solid biblically defensible concept. Spirits are able to travel without physical limitations. So, then, teaching that there always was only the physical, renders one incapable of authoritively understanding time, and speaking about billions of years. To do this, and not allow children to learn how believers in more than the physical only veiw the evidence, is offensive. Truth turned to fables.
Many other facets of science also have a similar story.
There is no need to be a hermit, to put science in it's place, and use it, rather than let it use us. No need to swallow the whole package deal, where the known spiritual is disabused, and faith (in other than the physical only) is trampled to the ground. That is a lame arguement.
Children in many countries had grandparents fight and die for their rights to learn of God, and have freedom. They have a God given right to learn the truth, and not be held in the dark, and kept away from the Creator.