Looking for all the missing links

[Norman321]

You don't even have any qualifications in biology (not even a bachelor's), yet you claim that you are right and the vast majority of biologists are wrong. Don't you think that's a bit delusional?

You don't even have any qualifications in theology (not even a bachelor's), yet you claim that you are right and the vast majority of Theologists are wrong. Don't you think that's a bit delusional?

 

[USincognito]

evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."

169 B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications Inc., 1985, p. 489.

This is a very interesting quote mine. The publication that turns up is from 1973, not 1985. And a seach of the Google book shows one mention of archaeocetes, but nothing like this quote.

The quote does show up with the same citation on ICR though.
Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
Just one problem though, the archaeocetes mentioned parenthetically aren't Pakicetus or Ambulocetus.

However, evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl states: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [i.e., Basilosaurus and related creatures] could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."11​

Of course there's that pesky "169" at the start of the citation. Obviously a foot or endnote that gradyll didn't bother cutting of when he got it from some Creationist website.

Looks like it came from Darwinismrefuted.com
Darwinism Refuted.com

However, evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."169

-------

169 B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications Inc., 1985, p. 489.​

And then there's the fact that the book wasn't originally published by Dover Publications, it was McGraw-Hill.
Vertebrate history: problems in evolution - Barbara J. Stahl - Google Books

ETA all below:

Oh wow. It gets more interesting if you Google Barbara Stahl Whale Evolution. All of the hits on the first page are from Creationists.

Also found this exchange on the ASA usenet. Glenn Morton notes that Phillip Johnson was quoting Stahl 20 years ago from her 20 year old (at the time, writings):

As to the second part of your objection, I do know that he used a 20+ year
old paleontology text by Barbara Stahl as his prime source for his 1991
book. Why didn't he use Carrol's 1988 vertebrate paleo book? It would have
been better. Johnson engaged in poor scholarship.​

 

[USincognito]

I do wonder, how can one be sure?

Astridhere, do you think that this is a "Poe" site?

Objective Ministries has been known to be a Poe site for many years.

Astrid leanred it was one when she herself linked to an image from it a while back.

 

[USincognito]

it's that common ancestor that is evasive and cannot be seen anywhere in the world's fossil record

You don't need to have a fossil of every single being that ever lived ever. That's Creationist moving of the goalposts. We have more than enough evidence from DNA, ERVs, etc.

Of course that's been explained to you over and over again, but you'll just keep ignoring it.

 

[Davian]

Objective Ministries has been known to be a Poe site for many years.

Astrid learned it was one when she herself linked to an image from it a while back.

<searches> - here - thanks, I had forgotten about that one.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

You don't even have any qualifications in theology (not even a bachelor's), yet you claim that you are right and the vast majority of Theologists are wrong. Don't you think that's a bit delusional?

I don't argue theology with Christians. Thus your point is completely irrelevant.

This is a science forum, not a theology forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a science forum, not a theology forum.

Why is it called Christian forums, then?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Why is it called Christian forums, then?

We are currently in the Physical & Life Sciences forum, not the Theology forum. I would figure a non-newb such as yourself should understand the difference.

But like I said before, I avoid arguing theology with Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

But like I said before, I avoid arguing theology with Christians.

Are you a Laodicean?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Are you a Laodicean?

No, I take my beliefs seriously. I enjoy talking about the philosophy of religion, not the theology of the Bible. Theology only follows if you accept the truth of the Bible, which I do not. Thus, I don't care much for theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

I enjoy talking about the philosophy of religion, not the theology of the Bible.

Perhaps you can tell us why Buddhism got started then?

Hint: It is a breakaway religion from another one.

 

[Tiberius]

but you ARE changing what you have said. Now you are saying "she is unskilled" which is a different aspect from before. So now that you are changing the bars here we can move on. Now WHY is she unskilled? Are you any more skilled? How can one unskilled person tell another that they are unskilled? Unless you have a degree or something that you are not sharing. Of course.

Your problem is that I said she had a flawed interpretation and then I went and said she was unskilled?

That's it?

Really?

She has a flawed interpretation BECAUSE she is unskilled. Astrid has a lack of knowledge about the things she is talking about. Rephrase that in any way you want, but that is the root of the problem.

 

[TerraIncognita]

This is a very interesting quote mine. The publication that turns up is from 1973, not 1985. And a seach of the Google book shows one mention of archaeocetes, but nothing like this quote.

The quote does show up with the same citation on ICR though.
Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
Just one problem though, the archaeocetes mentioned parenthetically aren't Pakicetus or Ambulocetus.

However, evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl states: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [i.e., Basilosaurus and related creatures] could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."11
​

Of course there's that pesky "169" at the start of the citation. Obviously a foot or endnote that gradyll didn't bother cutting of when he got it from some Creationist website.

Looks like it came from Darwinismrefuted.com
Darwinism Refuted.com

However, evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."169

-------

169 B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications Inc., 1985, p. 489.
​

And then there's the fact that the book wasn't originally published by Dover Publications, it was McGraw-Hill.
Vertebrate history: problems in evolution - Barbara J. Stahl - Google Books

ETA all below:

Oh wow. It gets more interesting if you Google Barbara Stahl Whale Evolution. All of the hits on the first page are from Creationists.

Also found this exchange on the ASA usenet. Glenn Morton notes that Phillip Johnson was quoting Stahl 20 years ago from her 20 year old (at the time, writings):

As to the second part of your objection, I do know that he used a 20+ year
old paleontology text by Barbara Stahl as his prime source for his 1991
book. Why didn't he use Carrol's 1988 vertebrate paleo book? It would have
been better. Johnson engaged in poor scholarship.
​

Thanks for sussing this out. I knew it had to be another fraudulent creo quote mine hack job. Seems to be right on par with what those hucksters (little Hovind and circular $ye) over at Creation "Science" Evangelism are foisting on the sheep at the moment.

 

[Norman321]

Perhaps you can tell us why Buddhism got started then?

Is this a trick question? Ok I will bite. How about Buddhism started with Buddha?

Hint: It is a breakaway religion from another one.

Before Buddha was Confucius.

Confucius say: "Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire."

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Interestingly Buddha was born of a virgin too. What are the chances of that?

From wiki:

Religious parallels
See also: Syncretism and Christianized myths and imagery
Referring to the prophetic dream Queen Maya had prior to conception, some versions of the life story of the Buddha say that he was conceived without sexual activity. This interpretation has led to parallels being drawn with the birth story of Jesus.
The story of the birth of the Buddha was known in the West, and possibly influenced the story of the birth of Jesus. Saint Jerome (4th century CE) mentions the birth of the Buddha, who he says "was born from the side of a virgin".[2] Also a fragment of Archelaos of Carrha (278 CE) mentions the Buddha's virgin-birth.

Other parallels in the birth stories include:[citation needed]

• The similarity in the sounds of the names of Mary (Aramaic: &#1502;&#1512;&#1497;&#1501;, Mary&#257;m) and Maya.
• Maya conceived during a dream, Mary conceived around the time of a visitation from an angel.
• Both women gave birth "outside" of a home.
• Heavenly wonders appeared in the sky.
• Heavenly beings (angels or devas; or in some Mahayana traditions, Samantabhadra) announcing the newborn as "savior" of the world.
• Sages came to visit the newborn and make prophecies of auspicious careers.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Interestingly Bauddha was born of a virgin too. What are the chances of that?

From wiki:

I guess "holy" mammals cannot be the product of 'yucky' conventional reproductive methods.

 

[Astridhere]

Thanks for sussing this out. I knew it had to be another fraudulent creo quote mine hack job. Seems to be right on par with what those hucksters (little Hovind and circular $ye) over at Creation "Science" Evangelism are foisting on the sheep at the moment.

The one thing an evolutionist is incapable of doing is accepting the data their own researchers come up with.

Kenneth Rose stated that the inner ear of Indohys was poorly seen in just one example. Everyone here knows now that the bones were washed together and are not from one individual. You have Indoyus with toes and hooves. You have a mess to offer in Indohyus and the rest or your so called whale intermediates aren't any better. Kenneth Rose challenges Thewessin. Thewessin wants headlines and grants, not truth.

Look at you all squirming, denying, playing fruit loops with each other and stroking each others ego, ad nauseum.

There is a very full rubbish bin filled with peer reviewed twoddle that ended up being nothing more than evolutionary delusions. Hence hitting on my scientific credentials means absolutely nothing. I have plenty of credentials, a phd and honours, in other fields and I am no idiot.

There is no quote mine and the information I gave is as it is and reflective of the status quo, with a very well credentialed evolutionary researcher, Kenneth Rose, also alluding to the fact that Thewissen has not made his case.

None of you could reinstate Indohyus back to its' glory state. Not one of you, nor can you if you tried. The facts are the facts, lovies, so suck it up and deal with it.

Indohyus is a sham and none of you have been able to defend it with anything more than having a cheap shot at me. What a laugh!

Why didn't they disagree with Kenneth Rose? Because they can't. This is why they chuck ridicule at me and try to take walks down the garden paths of evasion. :o. You evos should be embarrased at the this display of yours given all your crap about basing your views on science.

Come on Tiberius and the other big mouths here.... you have many words to say against me, refute Rose a well credentialed evolutionist, you loosers that are a total waste of anyones time.

I have made my point and it is irrefuteable because it is based on the true state of the evidence around Indohyus rather than the glossy misrepresentation that is printed and sold to the public.

I'll bet the majority of evos didn't even know Indohyus was a piecemeal reconstruction, don't know you have never found a near complete fossil, did not know indohyus comes with hooves and toes, did not know indohyus inner ear was theorised from one single specimen that was poor and vague and did not know that some evo researchers question the validity of Thewissens assumptions. Well I am pleased to be the one to bring this to your attention. Are you gobsmacked? Obviously, Yes, most of you are becauuse you simply cannot deal with factual information and cannot repel it with anything more than personal shots at me.

Party on you evos at my expense as much as you like. I have demonstrated the true state of Indohyus and your denial and evasion of the factual state of indohyus will never ever be a refute to me, now matter how much you wish it was. That is just one example of a plethora of misrepresentations evos use as evidence for TOE.

Thanks for the blessings all those that like what I have to say.....

 

[NailsII]

Interestingly Buddha was born of a virgin too. What are the chances of that?

Gengis Kahn was also reported to be born of a virgin.
Clearly parthenogenesis gives no guarantee of turning the other cheek...
(to paraphrase Sam Harris)

 

[NailsII]

Exactly! Which is why, even though Christians understand perfectly well that cosmology, abiogenesis and ToE are divided into different disciplines -

we don't hold you to be correct about such grand matters, where you outright contradict the Word of G-d. You simply cannot explain all the evidence, and by your own accounting, over 96% of it is unaccounted for.

I'm going to have to ask you to expand on this, because I didn't understand your point in the first part.

As for the second part, what do you mean by 96% of it (presumably evidence) is unaccounted for?
Lets face it, if te bible is the word of god, and he created everything in the universe, then looking around at the natural world should lead you directly back to god.
Here is the really wierd part - everything that humans have looked at over the last few hundred years can be explained (and modelled) without any such entity.
What does that tell you?

Thanks for sussing this out. I knew it had to be another fraudulent creo quote mine hack job. Seems to be right on par with what those hucksters (little Hovind and circular $ye) over at Creation "Science" Evangelism are foisting on the sheep at the moment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hint: They all are.

I am the walrus, eh?