Where did Whales come from?

[JackRT]

Amen, but today's so called scientists will call you names and imply that your are crazy unless you blindly accept their unsupportable views. Jesus tells us of a special punishment for offending little ones who believe in Him. Evolution teachers should read the words of Jesus instead of forcing the unsupported views of the false Theory of Evolution on our children.
Mar 9:42

AS both a Christian and a scientist I find your statement to be both ill informed and rather insulting.

 

[Radrook]

Whales, were historically land dwelling animals. Many people have difficulty distinguishing them from fish. Their morphological differences come from the differences in their evolutionary history, and the difference in how they came to be sea dwelling.

That's not an established fact-it is an opinion.

Here is some info that you can dismiss because it's posted on the creatiobn site.
Whale evolution fraud - creation.com

 

[Job 33:6]

That's not an established fact-it is an opinion.

It is fact, some people just need time to become aware of it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's not an established fact-it is an opinion.

Here is some info that you can dismiss because it's posted on the creatiobn site.
Whale evolution fraud - creation.com

Thanks for the link, Rad, I haven't read it all yet but I'm, liking their definition of science. When it irresponsibly claimed here that science makes it so, I've always pushed the fact that science does nothing on it's own, people do, and this guy defines science as "what scientists do".

Science is nothing but opinions...I suddenly don't feel so alone in this.

 

[Job 33:6]

It is fact, some people just need time to become aware of it.

@Radrook
Oh ah, as for the link, the creation link about whale evolution. The article there is uninformative. It talks about ambulocetus and its lack of a blowhole. But this really is irrelevant, as ambulocetus is early on enough in the fossil succession, that it wouldn't be expected to have a blowhole. The website says the same thing about pakicetus, and yet this animal is even earlier on in the fossil succession than ambulocetus. Why would anyone expect pakicetus to be more whale like than ambulocetus?

The creation website also says pakicetus has hooves but it doesn't have hooves at all.

"There were no flippers (only hooves)"

The website talks about how ambulocetus doesn't have a thin "cheek bone", but then compares it to a horses. Heck, I could say a beautiful woman has a thin cheek bone, someone could compare her cheek bone thickness to that of a mouse's and say that it isn't thin at all.

So, the creation website just doesn't make sense.

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

 

[Radrook]

@Radrook
Oh ah, as for the link, the creation link about whale evolution. The article there is uninformative. It talks about ambulocetus and its lack of a blowhole. But this really is irrelevant, as ambulocetus is early on enough in the fossil succession, that it wouldn't be expected to have a blowhole. The website says the same thing about pakicetus, and yet this animal is even earlier on in the fossil succession than ambulocetus. Why would anyone expect pakicetus to be more whale like than ambulocetus?

The creation website also says pakicetus has hooves but it doesn't have hooves at all.

"There were no flippers (only hooves)"

The website talks about how ambulocetus doesn't have a thin "cheek bone", but then compares it to a horses. Heck, I could say a beautiful woman has a thin cheek bone, someone could compare her cheek bone thickness to that of a mouse's and say that it isn't thin at all.

So, the creation website just doesn't make sense.

I prefer their story to yours.

 

[Aman777]

Whales, were historically land dwelling animals. Many people have difficulty distinguishing them from fish. Their morphological differences come from the differences in their evolutionary history, and the difference in how they came to be sea dwelling.

Not quite, since every living creature on planet Earth, was created and brought forth from water on the 5th Day, Gen 1:21 which was 3.8 Billion years ago in man's time. The hoofed ancestors of Whales, who lived on land and later went back into the water, does NOT refute the scientific Fact, which agrees with Scripture, that "every living creature that moves" was created and brought forth from WATER.

Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth ...
www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...
Jul 26, 2016 - LUCA's genes are those of an extremophile organism that likely lived in an area where seawater and magma meet on the ocean floor, known ...

 

[Kenny'sID]

"fossil succession" always tickled me...I could put pictures of different breed dogs together and come up with the same thing they are calling evidence of evolution.

Such a scam, and not well thought out at that.

 

[Job 33:6]

I prefer their story to yours.

I don't know why you would prefer your source (which says it has hooves), over the information provided by the people who actually discovered pakicetus, or of those who have studied it.

They say that pakicetus doesn't have a blowhole and is therefore not a transitional fossil of the whale succession. But in the whale transition, you wouldn't expect all intermediate forms to have blowholes. Otherwise they wouldn't be transitional fossils (they wouldn't be transitioning if they were already whales to begin with). Why would pakicetus have fins? If it were of the original transitional forms in the sequence? It just doesn't make sense.

You don't need a scientific background to understand this. The creation website just doesn't make sense.

 

[Aman777]

AS both a Christian and a scientist I find your statement to be both ill informed and rather insulting.

Then tell us How and When mindless Nature produced the superior intelligence which only God and Adam have, Gen 3:22 in Apes. I predict you will run away and hide in order to avoid looking so unsophisticated. God Bless you

 

[Job 33:6]

Not quite, since every living creature on planet Earth, was created and brought forth from water on the 5th Day, Gen 1:21 which was 3.8 Billion years ago in man's time. The hoofed ancestors of Whales, who lived on land and later went back into the water, does NOT refute the scientific Fact, which agrees with Scripture, that "every living creature that moves" was created and brought forth from WATER.

I never said that the whale succession refuted scientific fact. I simply said that whales originated from land dwelling animals, which is accurate. Where those land dwelling animals that predated whales came from, is another discussion.

 

[JackRT]

Then tell us How and When mindless Nature produced the superior intelligence which only God and Adam have, Gen 3:22 in Apes. I predict you will run away and hide in order to avoid looking so unsophisticated. God Bless you

The very first record of how our world and the life on it came to be is found in God's record in the stars, the stones and the bones. We only recently have been able to read that record albeit imperfectly as yet. Before that all we really had was mythology and tribal legend.

 

[Job 33:6]

"fossil succession" always tickled me...I could put pictures of different breed dogs together and come up with the same thing they are calling evidence of evolution.

Such a scam, and not well thought out at that.

No you couldn't, as the variety of dogs we see today do not exist as fossils in the earth.

 

[Radrook]

I don't know why you would prefer your source (which says it has hooves), over the information provided by the people who actually discovered pakicetus, or of those who have studied it.

They say that pakicetus doesn't have a blowhole and is therefore not a transitional fossil of the whale succession. But in the whale transition, you wouldn't expect all intermediate forms to have blowholes. Otherwise they wouldn't be transitional fossils (they wouldn't be transitioning if they were already whales to begin with). Why would pakicetus have fins? If it were of the original transitional forms in the sequence? It just doesn't make sense.

You don't need a scientific background to understand this. The creation website just doesn't make sense.

They point out how the nose would need to relocate itself to the top of the head.
In any case, regardless of the errors that you imagine they are making, Jesus did not descend from a fish. So I guess we really don't have much more to discuss.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Did Whales come from land creatures or did they come from water creatures?

Whales reproduce whales, exactly as God made them.
God created whales as whales....

no surprise.

 

[Job 33:6]

They point out how the nose would need to relocate itself to the top of the head.

This is correct, but why would that transition need to happen in ambulocetus? The answer is, it doesn't.

http://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/otago123425.jpg

 

[Aman777]

I never said that the whale succession refuted scientific fact. I simply said that whales originated from land dwelling animals, which is accurate. Where those land dwelling animals that predated whales came from, is another discussion.

I was pointing out that God the Holy Spirit, the Author of Genesis, got it correct. No mortal man 3k years ago could have possibly written Gen 1:21. God Bless you

 

[Job 33:6]

In any case, regardless of the errors that you imagine they are making, Jesus did not descend from a fish. So I guess we really don't have much more to discuss.

If this is what it is truly about, concern that Jesus descended from a fish, then you should just say that up front. You should not attempt to talk poorly of other peoples work to get there, at least if you aren't familiar with it.

I love Christ, with all my heart. And I simultaneously work hard as a geologist. And in that, I am always, finding fossils and cross checking them with what is commonly known as the fossil succession. It is a real thing, and it pains me that my own brothers and sisters in Christ, oppose my work. Even in scenarios where they have never seen it. And I know the same goes for biologists and archaeologists and astronomers. If you do not walk in our shoes, you truly can only see the tip of the iceberg. And its hard to explain just how much is known, collectively in science, because its just so much information that it honestly takes years to gather.

Sometimes I have trouble trying to describe this to my wife, and I see her every day. There is just so much depth that we talk and talk and talk, and she still is only at the tip of the iceberg.

regardless,

This shouldn't be a discussion about God, because God, as our creator stands above it all. People are afraid to view the true beauty in His creation, out of fear that it opposes Him.

It is tough, because we grew up, being told certain things about how creation occurred. But if you saw Gods creation, and you studied it with your own hands and eyes and nose and tongue (rocks don't make much noise so I wont say ears), I believe most of those who doubt, would find something infinitely more beautiful than their original vague and unclear views of how creation unfolded.

 

[Aman777]

The very first record of how our world and the life on it came to be is found in God's record in the stars, the stones and the bones. We only recently have been able to read that record albeit imperfectly as yet. Before that all we really had was mythology and tribal legend.

False, since God told us of Billions of years before the big bang of our cosmos, which happened on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 God's Truth also correctly shows that it was the NEXT Day before the first Stars lit up. Gen 1:16 Science has recently confirmed that it was less than a billion years AFTER the big bang before the first Stars lit up. God's Truth is the Truth in every way. God Bless you

 

[Kenny'sID]

No you couldn't, as the variety of dogs we see today do not exist as fossils in the earth.

The point slipped by you.