- Oct 20, 2017
- 890
- 103
- 93
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
And Pakicetus had fur and no way to get rubbery feeling skin.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Whales don't have scales.
I didn't say they did.
They are mammals and have rubbery-feeling skin.
As usual, a Darwinian zealot is an instant expert, feigning moral indignation on a matter that is as obscure as ghosts in the fog. You have absolutely no interest in the actual facts but you have a caps lock so it's a FACT. Notice, you have nothing to say about the alleged fact, just that its is a FACT. Do you have any idea how many times I've seen this performance, the melodrama doesn't impress me.
First you say Gould rejects the faunal succession, which he doesnt.
Then you propose that gradualistic rates of evolution could not produce what we see in the fossil succession, but they can.
And you further propose that Gould believes in some sort of overnight speciation without intermediates, which he doesnt.
Gould recognizes the thousands of intermediates we have, and does not recognize rates of evolution beyond what gradualism can produce.
I can't be bothered to hold this conversation with someone who just spouts things out without having any education about them. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
I suppose ill add you to the ignore list. Ive wasted enough time here.
That's not what I was talking about, first you make a quote and then go into a rant about how dishonest creations are. You bring up Tompkins and his buggy algorithm but appear to have no interest when Talk Origin blatantly misrepresents the divergence. Ok so now you want to talk about amphibians. Paleontology is not an exact science and conclusions can vary by a huge degree.You are misreading me. What is a FACT is that whales were created amphibians . I am a Bible thumbing creationist and FYI a 4 point Calvinist.
I am not questioning your Creationist creds, believe me. (I thought this section was for discussion of theistic evolution not Bible thumbing Creationism). I really don't get how whales could have become mammals (warm-blooded, with live births and nursing their young) from amphibians. I don't think amphibians have scales either, back to our previous discussion. So - - How do Creationists imagine amphibians had limited evolution to become mammals? Also - - I am going to research but I can't think of any saltwater amphibians, although I could be incorrect. I go now to research that. But what??????! As far as whales being created as amphibians? I just don't see how you got there.You are misreading me. What is a FACT is that whales were created amphibians . I am a Bible thumbing creationist and FYI a 4 point Calvinist.
Crab-eating frog - WikipediaYou are misreading me. What is a FACT is that whales were created amphibians . I am a Bible thumbing creationist and FYI a 4 point Calvinist.
Well reading the Wikipedia article on this species which I never heard of before (pakicetus) - - please excuse my ignorance - - it appears they were amphibious, not an amphibian. They lived on land and water but had hair, birthed live young, and were warm-blooded. They are classified as mammals, so - - huh?You are misreading me. What is a FACT is that whales were created amphibians . I am a Bible thumbing creationist and FYI a 4 point Calvinist.
That's not what I was talking about, first you make a quote and then go into a rant about how dishonest creations are. You bring up Tompkins and his buggy algorithm but appear to have no interest when Talk Origin blatantly misrepresents the divergence. Ok so now you want to talk about amphibians. Paleontology is not an exact science and conclusions can vary by a huge degree.
Well reading the Wikipedia article on this species which I never heard of before (pakicetus) - - please excuse my ignorance - - it appears they were amphibious, not an amphibian. They lived on land and water but had hair, birthed live young, and were warm-blooded. They are classified as mammals, so - - huh?
I am not questioning your Creationist creds, believe me. (I thought this section was for discussion of theistic evolution not Bible thumbing Creationism). I really don't get how whales could have become mammals (warm-blooded, with live births and nursing their young) from amphibians. I don't think amphibians have scales either, back to our previous discussion. So - - How do Creationists imagine amphibians had limited evolution to become mammals? Also - - I am going to research but I can't think of any saltwater amphibians, although I could be incorrect. I go now to research that. But what??????! As far as whales being created as amphibians? I just don't see how you got there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?