Considering all the evidence available, it seems like a pretty good guess. But of course, supposedly, the evidence doesn't count. Or at least so I'm told...

Someone once said - Facts dont have any place in religion....

The evidence counts but science cannot without a doubt prove evolution as it stands now. Where are the missing links? There is none, nada, zip, zilch. Without them it will be hard to say concretely this is the way it was and this will never be revised ever. Of course with new information it will be revised and most likely in a way that proves it to be true but as it stands now we have a few missing puzzle pieces.

That is why the fact of evolution and theory of evolution are just scientific fact and scientific theory. Scientific fact is not the same as an actual fact.

CHAPTER VI: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, EVOLUTION AND LIFE.

Clovis, has it ever struck you, that God is responsible for evolution?? it is possible...God could well be experimenting...by the bacteria that evolved and billions of years pass and now here we all are

Well, once again, its time to look at the evidence:

First of all, lets look at the fossil record. If evolution weren't true, or at least near the truth, and were creationism correct, then we should see humans on the same geological level as dinosaurs, etc. etc. So why do we not? Here is a good explanation for that:

Courtesy of http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
So basically, we don't find human remains in the layers that we find dinosaurs because there is a 65 million year time difference between the age of Dinosaurs and the age of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Heres one thats right up your alley, WWF:

This one is self explanatory. I doubt you'll comprehend it though.

I hope this clears these things up for you. And hopefully you ACTUALLY READ THIS.

WWF getting backto the main question I was asking..remember this...


Well if that is the case, then science and evolution relates to education...do you follow their logic?

The bible doesnt hold any evidence to back itself up, yet you do not have a problem with it, so in all fairness if you are willing to believe in somehting a man has written, then how come you don't believe in other stories skeptics have written?? do you see what I am trying to say here?

Evolution is still ref to education..so now can you answer my question???

Please dont dodge..but if you are going to dodge..at least let me know you dont wish to answer...

I steer more towards Theistic Evolution. It is not a scientific theory per se but it is what I believe in more or less. To believe such you have to first believe in evolution. This does not mean I do not see the faults in evolution and know it is not a finished work and will continue to be revised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

As opposed to what, Creationism? We've gone over this already, there IS no evidence of Creationism. At the present, evolution is the most logical, best supported theory we have. The creationism/evolution debate should be non-existent. We should be debating not whether evolution happened, but whether God was behind it. Not this current bunch of mumbo jumbo.

Respectable indeed. I would find it hard to argue against that, and it certainly is an idea that I would wholly enjoy debating. Theistic evolution makes sense to me, even if I don't believe it.

Until the fossil record is thoroughly complete there will always be logical skeptics of varying degrees towards evolution. The argument between if there was a designer or not is one that cannot be answered by science as it stands. Science cannot address ID and therefore ID is not science. My belief in ID has nothing to do with science.

I don't believe evolutionary theories should be exempt from scientific or empirical methods, so I don't accept a lot of what is being passed around.

How do you figure the Bible does not back itself up? This seems more like a personal standpoint; as many don't support or hold your viewpoint on this.

Good point. What I'm trying to say however, is like this (metaphor). Do you remember when you were a kid and you had a coloring book, and they have pages where you connect the dots to make the big picture? This is what evolution is like. We have most of the dots connected, making a fairly complete picture. The dots that we are "missing" are more or less irrelevant as we already have the majority of the picture. The fossil record is remarkably complete thus far. In Darwin's day it was obviously not, but with all the work done thanks to archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, chemists and all the other scientists, we have a pretty good picture of whats happened and who evolved and who went extinct.

But thank you, by the by, for addressing the fact that ID is indeed not scientific. You're more logical than I've given you credit for Clovis.

Lack of actual proven facts???

No real evidence to prove the very person you worship aka jesus...

nothing!!! absolutely nothing..sorry..but there is nothing


Yes it is a personal view on my behalf...at least im being honest..and I can see no real facts to back up the bible,...and I know so many do think it is true..I understand that

but what I was asking you was...why you would doubt science theories that have facts to back them up....and you prefer to follow a book that dont have actual facts that others can witness (not personal experience, for personal experience is how you chose to take it)

Bare in mind WWF, there is NOTHING wrong with following the bible...but there are those that follow the bible but keep an open mind...you dont as such (not trying to be rude )...

Are you answering my post??

What? I thought we were debating, not misconstruing sensationalist bull. Virtually no other scientific theory has gone under as thorough and meticulous a testing as the theory of evolution. The amount of time and effort the men and women of science have put in to thoroughly test evolutionary theory is astounding. WWF, you've gone from an actual debate to just spewing out fallacious lies. What you are implying, all debates aside, is certainly not true. Whether you adhere to evolutionary theory or creationism, you cannot possibly be serious in your implication that evolution is exempt from scientific and empirical methods. What utter trash.

The Bible doesn't back itself up. There are a lot of historical discrepancies in the Bible, and since I have the time right now, I think I will go over a few.

First, we can't show that much of the Bible is true. We don't have Abraham's grave, nor do we even know if the guy actually existed. The same thing applies for many figures/places in the Bible: Moses, Joseph and his technicolor coat, Isaac, Joshua etc. etc. I draw the line at King David/Solomon. It is very likely that there was a King David like figure, at the very least, but before that I am rather doubtful.

Second, the Bible does contradict itself.
Here are a few examples, taken from this website.
1. Is God good to everyone, or just certain people?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

2. Is Yahweh a God of War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

3. Who was the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

4. Is Jesus equal to, or less than the Father?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

5. Which came first, beast or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Furthermore, the actual historicity of the man we refer to as Jesus Christ is in serious doubt by many. If you wish to discuss any of this further (anyone), feel free to PM me.

What facts are you speaking of and how do you feel they confirm the scientific theories you believe in? How can these things be recreated so that they can be demonstrated, validated, and proven?

I never said they were exempt because they shouldn't be. However, a lot of literature about evolution gets published that's unscientific and unconfirmed and people who do not understand scientific and empirical methods get sucked into it. I see it a lot in the links that get posted in these forums.

Sorry to interject in your discussion unannounced. I had a thought this morning and I was waiting for a good time to share it. Have you ever heard of the "observer effect" also known as the Hawthorne Effect I believe it is? It says that by studying a thing you can change it, or effect testing results. Have you ever considered that the people posting in favor of evolution right now could be considered the first generation of people raised with the theory of evolution? That is, from childhood they have been taught the theory of evolution as something real and valid. These people grow up and become scientists. Are they not bringing their presuppositions and bias to the field? Is it a case of self-fulfilling prophecy or the observer effect? In other words, one makes what they believe "real."

Well you might reconsider your very last statement in the fact that at times, not often, I still do connect the dot activities, especially when they are behind cereal boxes. A bit more often but not alot me and my wife will break out the crayons and coloring books too.

Seriously though it was my lifelong on and off subscription to National Geographic that made me reevaluate evolution from my earlier belief that it was simply evil. Cannot help the way I was raised but I am always looking for answers and askig what ifs. It was specifically the 1999 issuse of National Geographic and the article titled 'The Rise Of Life On Earth: From Fins To Feet' that made me reconsider. I looked back in my Bible and saw that indeed that God made the simple life forms before the more complex. It instantly clicked that God works through evolution. Before I even knew what the term Theistic Evolution was I pretty much was a subscriber. So it was the small creature called the Ichthyostega that made me convinced evolution was real. Of greater interest is the Eusthenopteron which might have been the first creature to walk out the sea. As I have always said that science and its discoveries to me only prove more and more God does exist. Here is an article of interest:









Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientist Say

WWF you are answering a question with a question

And if you ever read anything on evolution..then you would understand why I believe it is fact

Now what actual evidence backs up a bible?

This is definitely true. But for the most the same skeptics that deny God will also deny that our mind can have some effect over reality. Our mind and our spoken words are very powerful.

What? How? What makes their methods unscientific, as opposed to organizations like AiG that have a preexisting agenda?

Well evolution is part of science not all of it so that is completely irrelevant as a point. But it is the concern of microbiology, genetics, phylogeny and zoology all of which is science.
But despite what misrepresentations of science has told you evolution is very much science and follows scientific method.
Bacteria Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Animal Evolution - A whole text book for you.
Evolution
Evolution
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Evolution
Evolution
Links between humans and sharks
Evolution of Dinosaurs.
The extremely well documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs
More bird evolution
Evolution
Bird evolution
Insect evolution
Insect evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Plant evolution
Plant evolution
Cambrian Evolution.

WOW Matt..you sure have placed so much effort..if WWF ignores this..then I doubt he is keen to see any other POV...

Which he invariably will. Evolution is staring him in the face and he sees straight through it.

However, its one thing to not believe in evolution, thats fine, although I disagree. It is a whole different story when you start making things up about science and evolution, as he's been doing for the past 3 pages or so. That irks me. Isn't there a rule somewhere about not posting things that actually aren't true? While the evolution/creationism debate certainly wouldn't fall under this, him posting that evolution isn't science and that its only accepted because its not put under the same scrutiny IS a fallacious lie/creationist propaganda.

Propaganda is correct...I think too many have been brainwashed into thinking that Darwin set out ot disprove God <---this is not true..not at all

Exactly. Too many people buy into creationist hype. I honestly have no idea why. Invariably, however, they cling like drowning rats to wreckage, and that boats sinking pretty fast. Honestly, it won't be too terribly long before the gigs up for creationism. I'm tired of this debate. Its ridiculous. The evidence stares us in the face, BLATANTLY, yet there are still people out there who seek to deny it, and even worse they brainwash others into believing that evolution is some sort of satanic religion of sorts. Evolution is the truth. Not only is this a fact, but creationists also can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that EVOLUTION IS NOT IN OPPOSITION TO RELIGION! Why don't you get that? (not you, BM, of course)

The biography of Charles Darwin is moving to say the least..and he was religious and gave it up after his 3rd child Anne died at the age of 10 with scarlet fever..he lost 3 of his kids to the same thing.. (pity there was no discovery of penicillin back in 1849) ...but thats when he lost his faith...nothing to do with his discoveries on evolution..he made a lot of his discoveries BEFORE his kids died and before he lost faith

Overall it just shows how stubborn and biased YECs are. Like I said before, the evidence for evolution is dancing right in front of you, where as the evidence for creationism is just as intangible as the Christian God.

Oh really now? Seems like you're a tad bit wrong here Clovis.
http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/publicatio...2008%20PNAS.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04...lizard.php#more

Modern day evolution and the only thing humans did was put a new species of lizard on an island. You'd be incredibly ignorant to think species can't travel to other places without human intervention, so the theory of evolution stands this much closer to fact.

Oh, wow, the same thing happens with Creationism! Fancy that!

Well I can only agree with you there

Okay, show me evidence using the scientific method that a land whale evolved and into a modern day whale that swims in the sea or ocean. Be sure to include all the steps that would be include in the research so that it is testable, observable, measurable, and repeatable. How are you measuring past whale existence/evolution?

This is how science is performed.

Alright, here, I think this link is all you will require.

Evolution of Cetaceans
Be sure to read the external links at the bottom of the page, their chalk full of information.

On the same note, since I have complied, why don't you show me, using the scientific method, that what you believe (creationism) is correct?

Okay, what you gave wasn't testable, repeatable, measureable, or observable today. Again, please provide these things if you want me to believe it's scientfic.

First of all, before I begin, what is testable, repeatable, measurable and observable today are the fossils left behind by the creatures that were once living. We cannot, in the way that you describe, directly observe the total evolution of whales. However, we can infer, due to our understanding of Evolutionary Science and the fossil record that this is the best explanation so far we have for how whales came to be what they are.

So, without further ado, a much more thorough response to your query.

The Evolution of Whales, a la Churchanddestroy
First of all, a critical step towards understanding the evolution of cetaceans (whales) is actually understanding evolution. So it is here that I begin.
Evolution is "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The building blocks for all life is deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA as it is commonly referred to. DNA contains genes, which are basically the blueprints to the makeup of your body. Your body is the genetic combination of the DNA of your mother and father. During sexual reproduction, basically what happens is the genetic information of your parents is combined, thus creating you. You are a product of that combination of genes, along with the mutations that occur during that combination, which make you an entirely different organism than your parents.
This is how evolution works, and as you claim to be a man of science, you should know this already.
In case you need further reading, please refer to this website.
Other websites to consider in your reading include the following:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html, specifically the link found here, the 29 evidences for macroevolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/s...php?topic_id=46

Now then, on to the evolution of cetaceans.
Please, before you read on, refer to these links supporting my claims
Courtesy of National Geographic, a highly reputable publication
Watch the video on this site
More on cetacean evolution
Informational site from Talkorigins

Here is a list of the species that evolutionary theory shows whales are descended from, along with links.
Indohyus Indirae
Indohyus
Explaining the evolution from Indohyus to modern whales
Pakicetus inachus
Pakicetus, an early proto-whale
More on Pakicetus
Ambulocetus natans
Ambulocetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Kutchicetus
More on Kutchicetus
Rodhocetus
Rodhocetus
Protocetus Here we recognize one of the first creatures to breach the transition between proto-cetaceans and actual cetaceans.
Protocetus
Another site explaining the evolution of cetaceans, including Protocetus
Basilosaurus
Basilosaurus
Dorudon
Dorudon
Squaladon, which displays some of the first evidence of echolocation
Squaladon
Cetotherium, the beginnings of the modern whale
Cetotherium

There you have it, WWF, although not as comprehensive as it could be, still very informational. I trust that you will properly evaluate all of the above information before you posit your response, and when you do respond, I trust that you will have scientific evidence supporting your beliefs about the origins of life. And please, don't make it a one sentence response. I actually put a fair bit of work into making this as understandable as possible.

The material you provided is mostly from wiki which anybody can edit.

The material is not observable, testable, repeatable, or measureable, so it is not scientific.

AIG already debunked the idea of whale evolution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp

"Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:

Mesonychid (55 million years ago)

Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)

Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)

Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)

One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)"

Au Contraire.

I believe you'll find it's called Evidence, which is both observable and measurable. From this evidence, hypotheses are made, in this case - predicting that we will find other fossils that will have certain observable and measurable characteristics. When new fossil evidence is subsequently found, observed and measured, the hypotheses are then confirmed or altered accordingly.

It's a mechanism of self-correction called the Scientific Method. It works on the basis that, over time, as more and more evidence is collected, the hypotheses become more accurate at predicting the next piece of evidence to be found, until the point when the hypotheses no longer need to be changed.

Not all Science is replicated easily - within a laboratory or otherwise.

WWF from what I can see, I believe you are being unreasonable here. These guys like matt & church..have thrown in every bit of great effort they could find..and all I have seen from yourself is non stop asking for more and then you constantly put each one down..it seems to be non stop and I seriously now doubt you care for any evidence provided
Wiki anyone can edit but after some time once investagated..any FALSE info posted gets removed from wiki, we all know this...and i've seen believers use wiki as a source many times

but if I were those guys that keep giving you what you ask for and saw how you put down each hard effort, I would no longer bother, as it would make me believe you really hold no interest

At least if you are going to debate it..and if you do hold interest...imagine what it would be like if you put so much effort into it all and all you got was put down non stop

You expect that to bring down evolution WWF? You've provided no scientifically sound information. Back up what you say. Yes, much of the material I used came from Wikipedia, for conveniences sake, but I also quoted several actually reputable sources, such as National Geographic and the Talkorigins website.
Anyways, before we look at the scant evidence you placed at my feet, I'm going to show you just how ridiculous the AiG website is, and how unscientific at that.
Lets take a look, shall we?



Well, here is my refutation of that
Firstly, addressing the "bone" problem you brought up:
"The skeletal features and physiology would not have to, and didn't change radically as Sherwin stated, offering no evidence for the claim, much the same as the quotations from deBeer, Hitching, or Denton. Although I have not read the pieces, the quotes given seem to be either horribly out of date or highly speculative and lacking in any substance regarding, or research into, the subject at hand. This is similar to "Scientific Roadblocks", only with 35, 17 and 14 fewer years of research and discoveries to access, respectively. As stated before, one needs to do research into a subject one intends to write about.

The earliest known whales, Himalayacetus and Pakicetus are presently known only from cranial material, so they are not much help. However, the position of the inner ear bones in Pakicetus are a perfect intermediate between those of land mammals and the rotated ones of cetaceans (Thewissen & Hussain, 1993), not to mention the fact that the tympanic bullae are composed of dense bone as those of cetaceans (Gingerich, et al, 1983).

Neither has the postcranial skeleton radically changed. It is known from the fossil record that in Ambulocetus, the toes are elongated and the femur is short. The other skeletal elements are no different than other land mammals (Thewissen, et al, 1994). At the time of its description, most of the vertebral column and the pelvis of Ambulocetus had not been recovered. It has been, and is awaiting further description (Thewissen, 1998).

However, in the earliest known protocetid, Rodhocetus, there are definitely characteristics that show them to be more whale-like, but hardly radical. These are a further reduction of the femoral length, the rearward migration of the nares (nasal bones), to above the canine teeth (this is true of Rodhocetus, but in Ambulocetus, the narial region is still unknown), the sacral vertebrae are unfused, although they still articulate fully with the pelvis, a shortening of the cervical (neck vertebrae), and probably the most important, are the changes in the caudal (tail) vertebrae. They are relatively shorter, thicker, and more massive than those of land mammals, allowing for better attachment for the muscles involved in powering the, very likely, recently evolved flukes (Gingerich, et al, 1994). With the limb elements still unknown in Rodhocetus, it is not clear as to how much thrust was still generated by the hind feet (as with the majority in "big-footed" Ambulocetus). However, it is possible that Ambulocetus may also have had flukes capable of producing at least some amount of thrust. The extant giant river otter (Pteronura) of South America possesses a horizontally widened tail that produces thrust, even though the caudal vertebrae are of a typical terrestrial form (Fish, 1998). Furthermore, the swimming method of these otters (dorso-ventral undulation of the vertebral column) makes a very good analogy for the swimming method of Ambulocetus (Thewissen, 1998).

The transition of freshwater to sea water has been well-documented temporally through measurements of oxygen isotopes in the tooth phosphates and bones of early cetaceans (then compared with those of modern ones) (Thewissen, et al, 1996; Roe, et al, 1998). But this only tells when they became able to cope with the ingestion of sea water."
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/direpuppy/mindblocks.html

And here is some more on that whole pelvis thing:
"The pelves of early whales did not diminish very quickly. Initially, there was a gradual reduction of the size of the hind limbs. What actually happened to the pelvis is:
Pakicetidae:
I. Pelvic bones are unknown at this time.
Ambulocetidae:
II. The pelvis of the holotype of Ambulocetus has been recovered (as well as most of the vertebral column), but is still awaiting description (Thewissen, 1998)
Protocetidae:
III. Rodhocetus- Pelvis articulates to sacrum, sacral vertebrae are unfused (a major characteristic in the determination of the family Protocetidae) (Thewissen, 1998)
IV. Georgiacetus- Pelvis does not articulate with sacrum, but connected by ligaments (Hulbert, 1998)
Basilosauridae and Dorudontidae:
V. Pelvis does not articulate with the vertebral column, however, the femora articulate to it. And in his monumental 1936 work, Remington Kellogg identified two sacral vertebrae in Basilosaurus cetoides, differing from the posterior lumbar vertebrae by having "dorsoventrally thickened transverse processes that were trihedral in outline, which was not the case in other lumbar vertebrae. This same condition has been observed in Dorudon atrox." (Uhen, 1998, pg. 48)
Mysticeti and Odontoceti:
VI. The pelvic bones are greatly reduced. In some whales, there are also femora present, occasionally lower limb elements, and in rare instances, there are protruding hind limbs. (For a good brief rundown and description, see Nemoto, 1963.)"
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/direpuppy/mindblocks.html

Heres another good website. This website is a comprehensive history of the origins of whales and the search for that.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...156/ai_57828404

Ah, here we go. This is a direct response to AiG's prattling nonsense about Cetacean evolution, courtesy of a website known as "Noanswersingenesis". Funny, yes?
The quotes in red are from the creationist source, the quotes in black are the response.

As you can see, although the person responding was indeed more than a little sarcastic at times, the vast majority of the evidence put forth by creationists is baseless, unscientific conjecture, usually produced through various underhanded methods such as quote mining.
Why, if whales were designed to live in the sea by a perfect God, would they then have vestigial hindlegs?

This is taken from this website and it concerns the mostly fallacious lies concocted and further distorted by AiG, concerning the "missing pelvis" from whales earliest ancestors.
"There is quite a bit more to that skeleton than what Sarfati would have us believe. What Sarfati did not mention or did not know (probably the later) is that the original specimen’s locality was not completely excavated due to safety concerns when the original paper1 of Ambulocetus by “Hans” Thewissen et. al. was published in 1994. In 1996 a great deal more of the skeleton was found. The bones found in 1996 include much of the spine and the pelvis.2 The web site for an exhibit of a reconstructed skeleton of this fossil notes that it is “missing only the tip of the snout, scapula, humerus, distal part of the tibia and some ankle bones.” In other words it is remarkably complete. (Keep in mind if one has the limb bone from left side, one knows what the equivalent limb bone on the right side looks like.) A technical description of these are in press as I write this sentence.3"

As you can see, without too much effort and while using a variety of sources, I have easily shown that everything you presented from AiG is a load of bull.
For further reading, here is a list of websites you might find informational, such that you may properly educate yourself in the realms of science.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...160/ai_79196961
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/bburger/MainPage.html
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html this is the one that shows that the whole pelvis problem you brought up is BS
http://www.smithlifescience.com/WhaleEvolution.htm
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3558350.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1974869.stm
Have fun refuting all this WWF. Doubtless I'm going to get a one sentence response... as usual. Although I appreciate your last attempt at posting something scientific.

*bangs head against the wall repeating*people can't help if they are stupid...ok this thread is getting to the point where, im ready to shoot myself... ok WWF, I have one single question for you, just one, if you don't awnser then I know that your not on here to learn anything, but just on here to tell people that everyone else is wrong except for you, without any proof...my one question is, if a black hole isn't what we say, and what science says it is, then what is it? ( keep in mind your awnser will have to be something scientifical) i'll anxiously be waiting your awnser.

Nobody is arguing about what a black hole is. What I've asked is for evidence that a black hole can condense matter into a singularity as tightly as claimed.

They don't give me what I ask for. I ask for testable, repeatable, and observable science and I get wiki links or links with just the abstracts.

Just because someone fills up a page with links and misc information doesn't mean it's insightful or scientific.

WWF f they continue to debate with you..then I dont see how they can ever get annoyed...

I just get the feeling you have no real interest at all..<--but thats just my opinion

Well, we gave you the information we had readily available, and as far as I am concerned its up to you to accept or deny it. Thats your choice and I'm not going to argue it any more.


Then your page filled with links isn't insightful or scientific either. Its an odd sort of catch-22 as well.
While you're at it, if you're going to continue to debate this will you please address the information that I gave to you in my last post? Do you have anything to counter what I said?
Im not being snide, I'm actually asking because I think the debate flows more smoothly when we aren't just spewing baseless conjecture.

So I'm asking you formally here, without any sarcasm or personal jabs, what say you to the information I presented to you?
Is is scientific or not? If it is not, then why? And also, if you do not agree with it, then how are we ever supposed to prove the subject one way or another? If we followed your guidelines then no evidence presented for evolution OR creationism is acceptable.

Once the Schwarzschild Radius has been breached - it's extremely difficult to tell, as no information can escape from a black hole (with the possible exception of Hawking radiation and quantum fluctuations at the event horizon). Currently, there are no known forces that would stop such a continuation of the proposed Gravitational collapse happening.

As you'd need more matter than we currently have within the Solar system to exceed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff mass limit needed for such a proposed Gravitational collapse - I expect the chance of anyone coming up with experimental evidence is extremely slim.

but see I don't get why you say you don't argue the fact about what a black hole is, but wont accept that it can condense matter into a singularity, think about how much gravity it takes to suck in everything around it, defiantly more gravity then what the earth has, I haven't once seen you give evidence proving otherwise, you wanted evidence, people have sent you links, honestly I don't have the time to do that, just because I have a huge list of other things to do today, but mabey you should go back and read the links, you might learn something, but seeing how closed you are to learn new things I find it doubtful.

Why don't you provide information to prove us otherwise then? If no one can prove it doesn't happen, that means it could happen (in this case). NONE of the links I gave you were from wiki, btw. They were from reputable astronomy websites.

Well I don't think they understand what is meant by science. They simply don't provide what is asked for. Science needs to be testable, observable, repeatable, and measureable. The material they're posting is not meeting these standards, so it can hardly be viewed as scientific.
'