Omega:
<< To try and link species b y the shape of the head is absurd and not even close to scientific. >>
Measurements are evidence, no matter what you think.
The only thing they are evidence is the size of the heads measured. You need some genetic evidence as to how an "A" became a "B." How can the leg of dog-like land animal(pakicetus) become the fin of a sea creature
What evidence would you accept, as I asked earlier? Besides, it's not a matter of linking species.
That is exactly what it is about . You make that statement because you can't link them, you have no transitional fossils and if evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional.
There are massive numbers of species, genera, etc. that can be linked this way.
Not according to 2 of your best experts, Gould and Mayr.
Here is a statement from Mayer in his book "what is Evolution: "Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates(p 189).
Gould says basically the same thing.
<< When on uses "perhaps" in their explanation, you might as well stop. >>
Scientists are cautious in their conclusions, an excellent trait.
Not when they have scientific evidence that supports what they say. There are no maybes in their explanation of whale and dino evolution. There is also no scientific evidence to support such silly and unscientific explanation. Where is their caution there?
The absence of this habit among creationists is why no one listens to them.
Wrong again. When creation scientist refute the speculations of evolution, they give the scientific reason what it is not true. Evolutionist just say something is true and expect everyone to accept it. Unfortunately many do accept what they say and it is by faith alone.
<< It is amusing to me than any educated person would accept such a fairy tale. >>
Why would I believe that you are educated?
This is not about my education and I couldn't care less if you don't think I am educated. You lack even basic knowledge of genetics.
You show no sign of knowing the Bible, or anything about the modern world.
I know the Bible much better than you do and since I am 85, I have had much more experience in the modern world that you have had.
What effort have you made to understand views different from your own?
I will ask you the same question. I did not become a Christian until I was 45. I was taught evolution in high school and in college. When I was converted I subscribe to ICR and received articles written by PhD scientist on various science subjects for many years.
I have read an eleven hundred page book called The Evolution Cruncher, sold by one of my local churches. It piles error on top of error on top of error with no end in sight, yet creationists thought it was the last word.
The Evolution Cruncher supports creation not evolution.