Ken Ham and his brain-dead critics

[npetreley]

The topic of Ken Ham's radio spot was that a book was being distributed that encouraged teachers to teach evolution. He criticized the book in two ways. First, he said that it contained a picture of Ambulocetus that was based on a fossil with half the bones missing. Second, he said that the Ambulocetus toes led into a hoof.

People here say Ken Ham LIED on both accounts, and the basis for their accusation is that the radio spot aired in 2001, AFTER many of the remaining Ambulocetus bones were found (in 1996) and the findings were published (in 1998).

First of all, Ken Ham wasn't talking about the state of knowledge of Ambulocetus. He was talking about what information they used to create the PICTURE IN THE BOOK.

So let's have a look at the book. It's called "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, 1998." In case anyone didn't notice the date in th TITLE, here's the copyright date.

Copyright 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

In case of severe stupidity, let me spell this out.

That's the year that the discovery of the pelvis of Ambulocetus was first published, which means that the picture in this book is based on the knowldge about Ambulocetus when half the bones were still missing. In other words, Ken Ham was EXACTLY RIGHT in his claim.

Here is the picture to which Ken Ham was referring.

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol2.html

Here is the book.

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/

Now, as to Ken Ham's claims that Ambulocetus had hooves....let's take a look at a page from "An introduction to Whales," Willow Bend Environmental Education Center, Natural History of Northern Arizona

http://www.edu-source.com/marine/whales.html

Pachyaena (mesonychids in general) were hoofed omnivores. They still had padded feet, but each of the nails was a spatulate little hoof. In case you didn't notice, Ambulocetus also has little hooves.

I found several other sites that say Ambulocetus had hooves, but I chose this one because it points out the hooves in order to bolster its claim that Ambulocetus was part of an evolutionary transition to the whale. Nobody can claim that this idea is a creationist invention.

Enjoy your crow, folks.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

You are too much Nick, I can't help but chuckle.

 

[npetreley]

Jerry (shameless) bump.

 

[npetreley]

By the way, I don't mean that Jerry is shameless (although sometimes he does act that way), but that because Jerry shamelessly bumps his own posts a lot, I shall, too.

 

[Joe V.]

By the way, I don't mean that Jerry is shameless (although sometimes he does act that way), but that because Jerry shamelessly bumps his own posts a lot, I shall, too.

What I'm wondering is whether YOU have any shame. Poke all the holes in evolutionary theory you like. Until you provide me with something more scientifically sound, your endless complaints won't convince me of anything.

- Joe

 

[Jerry Smith]

I don't recall anyone accusing Ham of lying about the hooves. I called it into question because I was seriously wondering whether the creature really did have hooves or whether Ham was making that up. I didn't accuse Ham of lying about this, but I certainly did wonder aloud.

Now, Ham's 2001 claim that this picture was based on less than 50% of the skeleton is technically correct. The impression it leaves (and was obviously intended to leave) on the audience is incorrect. The picture accurately reflects what we know of the creature from its almost complete skeleton.

Strangely, the average Joe would think that one couldn't hope to discern as much about an extinct animal from less than half its skeleton. Just goes to show, the scientists had some tricks that the average Joe wouldn't know about to get the right picture from less data than one would think that they needed, as confirmed by the rest of the fossil find. I think this is reveals something about the methods of both scientists and their detractors.

If there is any question about intent to deceive on the part of Ham's organization, it can be put to rest by his use of the claim of "no pelvis" to call the 2001 comments of Miller on the PBS special "unjustified", as referenced in another thread.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe V.

What I'm wondering is whether YOU have any shame. Poke all the holes in evolutionary theory you like. Until you provide me with something more scientifically sound, your endless complaints won't convince me of anything.

- Joe

Well, this is what you SHOULD be convinced of, although you probably won't be.

1. Instead of addressing the points made against evolution, evolutionists here try to deflate the arguments against evolution by calling creationists liars, even when the creationists they are accusing and their writings they are saying contain lies have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

2. When proven that their allegations are wrong, they continue to make excuses according to double-standards instead of admitting their errors and apologizing.

3. If evolutionists debate by falsely calling their opponents liars (in other words LYING about their opponents) --- If, when they are shown to be wrong they cannot admit their errors but instead make excuses for their errors --- Then it will never matter if you can prove their evidence for evolution is wrong. They will never admit their evidence is wrong. They will simply attack creationists and make excuses for the flaws in their evidence.

Case closed.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Now, Ham's 2001 claim that this picture was based on less than 50% of the skeleton is technically correct. The impression it leaves (and was obviously intended to leave) on the audience is incorrect. The picture accurately reflects what we know of the creature from its almost complete skeleton.

Ah, selective reasoning. If the creature has hooves, the picture is incorrect, and the blame goes to the National Academy of Sciences for continuing to publish information that is out of date.

By the way, you are demonstrating exactly what I said -- that you will simply make excuses instead of admitting you're wrong.

 

[npetreley]

By the way...

"The greatest homage to truth is to use it." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Try it sometime. It really doesn't hurt. Honest.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley
Ah, selective reasoning. If the creature has hooves, the picture is incorrect, and the blame goes to the National Academy of Sciences for continuing to publish information that is out of date.

Let's duke it out in the other thread whether your claims that the picture is inaccurate are justified, then we can return to this one and see if you turn out to be correct on this:

By the way, you are demonstrating exactly what I said -- that you will simply make excuses instead of admitting you're wrong.

 

[Joe V.]

Nick, I'm not going to waste time comparing arguments between evolutionists and creationists. All I can say is, if the creationists had a legitimate claim, then they could win their case in court. They could get their theories published in scientific journals. They can't. You know why? Because they don't HAVE any legitimate claims, depsite your accusations. You believe you have a definitive example here (and that in itself is questionable), but it's the only ONE. Is this the best you can do???

- Joe

 

[Jerry Smith]

"The greatest homage to truth is to use it." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Try it sometime. It really doesn't hurt. Honest.

I'll have to take your word for it. I'm a pathological liar.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe V.
Is this the best you can do???

- Joe

One is better than none, and none is exactly what evolutionists were able to offer when I asked for a transitional series from 99.9% of the fossil record.

But I find it interesting that you keep going on and on about something that I've already said is irrelevant to me, so what's your point?

 

[euphoric]

Nick-

I've resisted responding to your posts as much as possible.  But this thread is a bit much.  For the record, I don't think you are a liar.  As much as it may be tempting to believe that you are being deliberately obtuse in the face of obvious refutation of your points, I remain unconvinced that this is the case.  What I do think is that you are sincerely desperate to believe what you feel religiously obligated to believe.  Further, I think you lack the background to understand the issues you discuss.  A more prudent individual might find this sufficient reason to avoid dogmatic assertions and attempted mockery of an opponents argument.  You have not chosen this course however, and your credibility and any ability you had to engage in rational discussion have suffered. 

Regarding the topic at hand, it is painfully clear that Ken Hamm intended to leave his audience with the impression that the Ambulocetus fossil remained incomplete.  He did so at a point in time when he either knew or should have known that the remaining portions of the fossil had been unearthed.  This makes it extremely difficult to believe that he didn't commit a lie by ommission.  Hamm's livelihood and his crusade depends on his ability to convince an unscientific audience that his cartoon version of evolutionary theory is correct and that the vast majority of biologists and other scientists around the world are  painfully ignorant, deluded to the point of deliberate ignorance or lying for religious reasons.  Unfortunately, he has a fairly large, mostly scientifically illiterate audience to play to. 

If you legitimately don't see why Hamm's tactic is dishonest, then I'm convinced that rational discussion on this issue is impossible with you.  If, on the other hand you are attempting to justify the lie, or pretend it didn't happen, then kindly admit that Hamm mislead his audience and let's move on to your next cut and paste job.

-brett 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Let's duke it out in the other thread whether your claims that the picture is inaccurate are justified, then we can return to this one and see if you turn out to be correct on this:

What difference would it make? I turned out to be correct on the picture and you're still making excuses and claiming he LIED. You simply rephrased it to remove the word lie and say his information was deceptive.

There's no point in putting in the effort to prove you are wrong if you won't admit it when the proof is right there, plain as day.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Doesn't refering to other members on this forum as "brain-dead" violate rule number 1?

1. Be kind to your fellow poster. No name calling. No flame-inciting language.

Nick, I hope you keep in mind rule number 7, next time you are iching to start a new thread.

7. You will come in here with the attitude and mindset that you are not always right. Stonewallers, and trolls need not apply (and hence will be happily removed from the board). This includes people on both sides of the debate.

Just a humble suggestion.

 

[Jerry Smith]

What difference would it make? I turned out to be correct on the picture and you're still making excuses and claiming he LIED.

You really haven't "turned out to be correct" quite yet on the picture... You are claiming that there are no hooves in the picture.. only things that look like claws. I don't have enough knowledge of what toe-hooves look like to make an assessment like that, so I wonder if you would go back to the other thread and answer this one....

Could you quickly compare the pointy things on the end of the toes in the picture to the pointy things on the end of the toes in the fossil, and let us know whether you stand behind your claim that the picture does not illustrate the hooves?

Going on.... 

You simply rephrased it to remove the word lie and say his information was deceptive.

The intent to deceive is very clear here. You are correct that AiG uses language that moves their claim from being directly about the fossils and what we know of Ambulocetus to make it about what was known about the specimen at the time certain illustrations were drawn - in two of the cases. In one of those cases they were actually correct on the point about the illustration. The other refers to an illustration from '97 or '98 after excavation had been completed on the fossil, and before the new fossil evidence was published in a journal, so we don't know for certain how much information the illustrator had access to. I don't know if that can be cleared up with certainty, however a lot of people came away from hearing that radio spot still thinking "there aren't any transitional fossils..." and it is clear that this was the real message of the spot - that scientists who do paleontology are deceiving children about the evidence. Furthermore, in 2001, they repeated the claim, and this time did not bother to run any interference by criticizing an illustration. They criticized the recent comments of Miller on the PBS special with the claim that the pelvic girdle had not been found! This was long after the pelvic girdle had been found and this is only attributable to extremely sloppy scholarship or to deception.

You can make a similar complaint about the NAS book, but no one need believe you if it turns out that the picture in the NAS book you criticize is substantially incorrect. I don't think that is going to happen.

 

[choccy]

Originally posted by npetreley
By the way...

quote:

"The greatest homage to truth is to use it." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Try it sometime. It really doesn't hurt. Honest.

And then four posts later:

One is better than none, and none is exactly what evolutionists were able to offer when I asked for a transitional series from 99.9% of the fossil record.

Is it just me or does anybody else find this truly pathetic? Is the above an example of:

1. The tuth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
2. Forgetting to mention that the transitional series in question could not include any results of polyploidy.
3. Forgetting to mention that several examples of transitions were given.
4. Lying by omission with the intent to deceive people into thinking there are no transitionals in 99.9% of the fossil record.

Choccy

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

You really haven't "turned out to be correct" quite yet on the picture... You are claiming that there are no hooves in the picture.. only things that look like claws. I don't have enough knowledge of what toe-hooves look like to make an assessment like that, so I wonder if you would go back to the other thread and answer this one....

No point. Talk about plausible deniability. I could take a poll of 1,000 people and I'm willing to bet the results would show that 99%-100% of them see claws and not hooves in that picture. But you could stand on your claim that the could be hooves unless I produced a statement from the artist saying that he was specifically told to draw claws. Then you'd find something else to pick away at. It's a total waste of time.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

The intent to deceive is very clear here. You are correct that AiG uses language that moves their claim from being directly about the fossils and what we know of Ambulocetus to make it about what was known about the specimen at the time certain illustrations were drawn - in two of the cases.

They aren't moving anything, you are. Ken Ham was specifically addressing a picture in a book by the National Academy of Sciences. (Which STILL hasn't updated its picture, by the way, so if you want to run around screaming about people deceiving the public, THEY should be your target, not AiG or Ken Ham.) That's ALL he was addressing -- the fact that they manufactured a transitional-looking picture out of the fossil evidence before most of the information was in. And that's perfectly true. The NAS book was published before the information about the remainder of the fossils were published.

There is a potential irony here, too. I don't happen to know if the paleontologists discovered the hooves in 1993 or 1996, but if the hooves were discovered in 1996, then Ken Ham was actually basing his point on the NEW information that was learned about Ambulocetus. That would be pretty funny, considering how you guys are trying to twist his message.

Frankly, I think the whole idea that Ambulocetus is a transitional is absurd, and I don't have the time or inclination to defend Ken Ham against people who couldn't admit they were wrong even after having been proven wrong beyond the shadow of doubt...but if anyone else wants to find out when the hooves were discovered, it might be interesting.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

In one of those cases they were actually correct on the point about the illustration. The other refers to an illustration from '97 or '98 after excavation had been completed on the fossil, and before the new fossil evidence was published in a journal, so we don't know for certain how much information the illustrator had access to.

What, you think they had privileged access to the information before anyone else got it? Are you a 400lb person who wears spandex? After all, you really like to stretch things way beyond the limits of the imagination.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

however a lot of people came away from hearing that radio spot still thinking "there aren't any transitional fossils..."

I hope so. Because it's true. And the creators of that spot know it's true, too. If they DIDN'T know it was true, or if they DIDN'T THINK it was true, then THAT would be an intent to deceive. But since that is NOT their position, then to say there ARE transitional fossils would be the intent to deceive.

Do you evolutionists simply not understand what it means to lie? Why is this concept so difficult for you? From MY perspective, they are not only telling the truth, they are informing people of the truth. If you could get off this lying kick you're on, you'd see that from YOUR persepective, they are MISTAKEN in their interpretation of the evidence. If you'd only be mature enough to admit it, you'd see Ken Ham is not even WRONG about ANYTHING FACTUAL -- not even from YOUR perspective -- because you do NOT know for a fact that this is a transitional fossil. All you have is interpretation.

So no matter what you think of the information they are teaching, they are still NOT LYING because there is no intention to deceive.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

and it is clear that this was the real message of the spot - that scientists who do paleontology are deceiving children about the evidence.

I don't recall Ken Ham ever using the word "deceive." If he didn't, then you're just plain wrong. If he did, then you're right and I would have to take issue with that unless he could produce evidence that NAS knows better. I, personally, can't say the NAS book is an attempt to deceive because I'd have to see into the hearts of the people who did it, or see some evidence that they know that what they are teaching is fase.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Furthermore, in 2001, they repeated the claim, and this time did not bother to run any interference by criticizing an illustration.

You simply don't understand that most of these articles are ABOUT the illustration. What they are saying is that evolutionists were so eager to SEE a transitional in Ambulocetus that they saw the transition in the fossil before they even had half of the information. Evolutionists needed something closer to fins than feet, so they "SAW" something closer to fins in Ambulocetus. The fact is that nobody knows whether the thing ever spent ANY time under water, or had the webbed feet in the drawing. It's highly unlikely that it did have such feet if the toes ended in hooves. But evolutionists saw those things in Ambulocetus, and the picture illustrates WHAT THEY WERE THINKING, NOT NECESSARILY THE WAY THE AMBULOCETUS LOOKED.

This is true, and it does not bear updating, but it bears repeating today over and over again, because it exposes the fact that evolutionists see the evolution of species in fossils whether or not the actual evidence of evolution is really there.

(By the way, why hasn't anyone ever noticed that the supposed transitional series to the whale still has a HUGE gap? Ambulocetus has a full arm and leg with hands and feet fairly typical of the mesonchids, but the next in the series, Basilosaurus, has fins. Perhaps we need another fossil and a more imaginative artist to close this gap?)

Even so, not even I am saying they are intending to deceive people. That's what evolutionists actually see in the fossils. If there's any deception going on, it is self-deception. But they're being honest about what they see. They're just wrong.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

You can make a similar complaint about the NAS book, but no one need believe you if it turns out that the picture in the NAS book you criticize is substantially incorrect. I don't think that is going to happen.

I do.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Several points:

1) It is not unlikely that the illustrator had access to the more recently excavated specimens or detailed information about them. After all, the NAS is a fairly prominent science organisation, and even in their arm that publishes educational materials, they certainly have the necessary clout to provide an illustrator with the most recent data, even if it has yet to be formally published.

2) It is quite unreasonable to think that the illustrator was drawing claws on the end of the Ambulocetus' toes. It was unanimously understood among scientists even before Ambulocetus was unearthed to begin with that the ancestry of whales was with the ungulates - hooved, not clawed animals. Only gross incompetence would lead an illustrator to presume claws on a creature in the ungulate lineage. The only possibilities are that the illustatrator did not intend the pointy ends of the illustration's feet to be anything or that the illustrator intended for them to be hooves.

Therefore, we need more proof if we are to believe your claim that the illustration of Ambulocetus in the NAS book is inaccurate.

3.) AiG repeated the claim that no pelvic girdle was found on its own face in response to the PBS documentary Evolution, which was originally aired in 2001 or 2002. Can you think of any excuse for this? Does this deception not inform our understanding of the mindset of those from AiG who presented this claim cloaked in language about illustrations - illustrations of a walking whale gathered from an incomplete skeleton? Your point that those who considered Ambulocetus to be a walking and swimming whale before the excavation was completed were too eager to pronounce the specimen transitional is simply unfounded. They were right! Perhaps a person untrained in paleontology has trouble understanding how they were able to draw that conclusion, yet our puzzlement does not equate to their suspension of careful methodology. This is the real message of AiG - that we can't see how they could have understood this fossil from the incomplete skeleton, so we have every right to assume that they are full of baloney, and to dismiss this and any other claims of transitional fossils that are found.

If AiG had real education on their mind, would they not stress that, though these illustrations were based on incomplete evidence that more complete evidence did bear out the original scientific understanding of the fossil.

Would they not at least point out (in at least one publication that mentions the lack of a pelvis), the pelvic girdle and much of the rest of the skeleton was later excavated - so as to be sure not to mislead their audience - even if they did insist their "point" was still valid - that the paleontologists had been too hasty in their conclusions?

If not, why not? By the way, have you pointed out to them the error in their geochronology claim? Do you think they will note a correction to it?