"The Truth About PhD Creationists"

[Skwim]

Pakicetus did not live in fresh water, it was a land animal, and fresh water fish, cant live in salt water.

Q. Why oh why do you make up things like this? Things that can be so easily checked and refuted?

A. IMO, it's because like so many of the assertions creationists come up with, nothing claimed as fact is ever expected to be doubted,* which I believe is a carryover from the compact the pulpit (the authority) has established with its flock (its eager sheep):

Unvoiced assertion: "Whatever I say is unquestionably true."
Unvoiced acceptence: "Whatever he says is unquestionably true. But more importantly, I want it to be true. "​

Wake up omega2xx. People here are a lot smarter than you seem to think.

* This is why every creationist site I've ever visited has been filled with ignorance and outright lies---OUTRIGHT LIES, and from Christians no less. Who would have thunk!---Everything they say is expected to be unquestionably accepted as true. And the lies don't really matter because they know that very, very few will ever be questioned, particularly by members of the choir. And those nonmembers who do question them are irrelevant because their questioning seldom, if ever, makes it into the pages of creationist propaganda.


.

 

[Sapiens]

What an unscientific thing to say. Jump out of a 5 story building and one PROVEN truth about gravitt will suddenly become apparent.




You just said, "theory of gravity proves nothing." Make up you mind.

The theory of evolution proves nothing: Genetic changes from one changes to the next, combined with things such as the fossil record, prove the theory of evolution.

Genetic changes are limited to the characteristics of the genes in the gene pool of the parents. the dominant gene for eye color will determine the color of the eyes of the offspring, but if neither parent has the gene for bones, they will never have a kid with bones. Generics will not allow it.

Wrong as wrong can be. Blue-eyed humans all have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today. Perhaps you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot?

Even many evolutionist have recognized the fossil record does not support evolution.

Here is a statement from Ernst Mayr, a one time professor of biology at Harvard.

"Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent...the discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

Gould says basically the same thing.

Typical quote mining, nothing more.

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermediates, but after 100+ years you have none.

All fossils are intermediates just as your parents are intermediates between you and your grandparents.

 

[McBell]

I am not going to quibble over this.

Good idea, because you are quibbling over a strawman you created.

You say gravity has not been proven and you say it has.

No, he said that the theory does not prove anything.
He also said that falling proves gravity.
That you are unable to discern the difference is rather revealing.

WE do no determine truth by majority. Gould is your most famous fossil expert. If you reject what he says, it indicates you are not willing to look at the problem with an open mind.

True but irrelevant. We have to work with what we have and we have millions of fossil and noteven one intermediate one.

That every fossil is an intermediate is the saddest thing one can try to use in a o of the fossil record. It is a recent invention when it became obvious the fossil record does not support evolution.

I see you hav enot upgraded your arguments since before the rest of the forum was out of diapers....

 

[McBell]

... fresh water fish, cant live in salt water.

Guppies can.

 

[Sapiens]

You should know better than to offer yourself as the source for what you say. You are obviously extreemly biased. FMI what is your PhD in?

I usually do not engage in either side of this sort of ad hominem/argument from authority crap, but your glaring error concerning eye color has spurred me on. My undergraduate work was in zoology and evolution, I studied under Stebbins, Wake, Smith, Caldwell and Dawkins. My post graduate work was in Biological Oceanography, after a decade of doing sponsored research I was promoted to manage the Manned Undersea Systems and Technology group at a major oceanographic institution. What you see as bias ('cause it disagrees with your presuppositional approach) is, in fact, just my honest appraisal of the probabilities.

Pass the mustard, it makes the bolony taste better. All of them have a PhD in a scientific discipline and are more qualified than you are. All of them have either taught in a major university, worked in private industry or done research for the government or private industry. Would a major university accept your resume to become a staff member?

Again, you understand as little about the workings of the academic world as you do evolution. Simply possessing a PhD is nothing more than having an academic drivers license, it takes more than that, PhDs, while not a dime a dozen, are just your ticket to get into the starting gate. What actually matters is your publication and citation record ... and the PhD Creationists are typically very weak in those two areas. So to create an appearance of being successful scientists they pretend that being employed (often as a low level technician) or teaching (often as Teaching Assistant or Lecturer) or being an Adjunct Faculty member (often nothing more than being an outside member on some poor fool's Masters Committee) is the same thing as having a real faculty slot. It is not. For example, when I was employed as research staff and Program Manager, I taught four classes per year, that just came under "other duties as assigned" and while the courses needed to be approved by the Academic Senate, I'd never have represented myself as one who was employed teaching or one who held a professorial appointment.

So, in answer to your question, on the basis of my academic credentials, publications and citation record a major university accepted me (and by extension my resume, which we refer to as a Curriculum Vitae or C.V.) to do research without supervision, manage my own grants and teach courses.

Teh usual evo straw man. Several on the ICR staff have had articles accepted by peer-review. They were on sciencne, not on creationism, which arf put in the round file as soon as God is mentioned.

Sure, just as I pointed out with Lislie... but he is not credentialed or productive (scientifically) in the areas he holds forth on with respect to the ICR. As I pointed out it is like going to an auto mechanic for an opinion on Chaucer.

I am glad is typical---He earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado.

So what? How does that speak to his expertice in the areas that he holds forth on outside of the Sun's Heliosphere?

Lets see you falsify "after it kind." Then you will become famous and rich. I have ignored most of this post because it is just silliness and originates in your preconceived bias.

That's actually quite easy, please forward my check to Planned Parenthood. At best you're caught in a translation problem. The O.T. uses the Hebrew word "min" that translates as: species, kind, group, or even nation.

I didn't say from dogs. I said dog-like. Packitecus look more like a dog than a whale. Since whales have fins and a blowhole and indohyus nor packicetus has neither, they are not whales. It is inconceivable that anyone would think a land animal, surviving very well on land would develop into a sea creature where life might not be so safe. Where is the phony doctrine of natural selection when you really need it?

Pakicetus bears little or no resemblance to a dog, save the fact that it had four legs an a tail, as do almost all terrestrial quadrupeds.

Pakicetus, methinks, externally, looked more like a large weasel:

If you look at the skull, that's even more clear that it has little in common with a dog:

Now look at a dog skull:

Quite different, isn't it? Look at the teeth, to start with.

I hate to burst your bubble, actually I enjoy it. but pictures do not say how it happened. You need some real science for that and you have none that will explain how it happened.

Of course I have an explanation for "how" it happened: "Natural Selection."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/evolution-whales-animation

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/whales-giants-of-the-deep/whale-evolution/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html[/QUOTE]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You say gravity has not been proven and you say it has.

I've never claimed gravity has not been proven. Rather, I am trying to explain that theories do not prove, they explain. They things they explain is what proves a theory, if the hypothesis it began as adequately and accurately explains the observed phenomena. A theory explains a given phenomena: This phenomena, along with supporting evidence, proves the theory. Evolution has never scientifically proven anything nor will it. However, it does explain to us the biodiversity of life, and combined with the predictions of what we can expect to find if evolution is true, it is this biodiversity and true predictions that prove evolution.

If you reject what he says, it indicates you are not willing to look at the problem with an open mind.

That isn't an argument. Rejecting something isn't inherently indicative of a closed mind, especially when dealing with scientific facts.

True but irrelevant. We have to work with what we have and we have millions of fossil and noteven one intermediate one.

We do have many "intermediate" ones, with a number belonging to our own most recent evolutionary line.

That every fossil is an intermediate is the saddest thing one can try to use in a o of the fossil record

It's not sad. It's acceptance that life is in a constant state of change.

It is a recent invention when it became obvious the fossil record does not support evolution.

It very much supports evolution, as we have found it possible to trace many species back, and as we go farther and farther into the past we find fewer and fewer examples of life, until eventually we only find it in the depths of the ocean, and then eventually none at all.

 

[Sapiens]

It is not a guess. your guess is based on a preconceived idea. Why don't you back it up with your source?

Sure: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists

Good piece on the subject by Richard Dawkins: http://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php

 

[Sapiens]

I never reply to post that long. If you want me to discuss it, break it up into smaller sections. I will comment on your last comment. Pakicetus did not live in fresh water, it was a land animal, and fresh water fish, cant live in salt water.

Your science is just not there. The earliest whales (including Pakicetus) lived in freshwater. The ancestors of modern whales moved into saltwater habitats and thus had to adapt to drinking salt water. Since fresh water and salt water have somewhat different isotopic ratios of oxygen, we can predict that the transition will be recorded in the whales' skeletal remains - the most enduring of which are the teeth. Sure enough, fossil teeth from the earliest whales have lower ratios of heavy oxygen to light oxygen, indicating that the animals drank fresh water (J. G. M. Thewissn, 1996) Later fossil whale teeth have higher ratios of heavy oxygen to light oxygen, indicating that they drank salt water. This absolutely reinforces the inference drawn from all the other evidence discussed here: the ancestors of modern whales adapted from terrestrial habitats to saltwater habitats by way of freshwater habitats.

 

[Shad]

OK then don;t claim it for those who preach evolution.

I only see you dropping names. I do not see someone saying "Evolution is true because Dawkins said so

Are you really that ignorant of the peer review process. No so called scientific journal will ever post an article that mentions creation or even God.Several ICR scientists have had articles pubilshed in peer-reviewed journals when he subject was about science.

God is not a model that has any predictive power nor can be tested.

PHD creation scientist are just as qualified as any PhD evolutionist.

I said competent not qualified. Qualified only demonstrates they have passed their discipline's program not that whatever they say is true.
.

What a low and incorrect view of science you hold.

No I understand what science does and what it does not. You don't

Are you really suggesting that science has not proved there is more than one blood type? Are you really suggesting that science has not proved that all living things have DNA? Google "Nobel prizes" and see how many of them were give for opinions.

No as more than one blood type was discovered not proven. Evidence supports an idea or it doesn't.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

• MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.
  
  CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.
  

Many treat something as 100% true because real science has proved the idea. Science has not proved anything in the TOE, not one.

Wrong again

It is amusing that the only response I ever get from evolutionists, is that I don't understand science. Yet they can't offer one thing science has proven that supports evolution. Want to be the first?

You get this response because you actually do not understand science.

How doo you know that is true?

Personally? I do not as it is not my field. I just accept the consensus which is based on evidence which include dozens of viruses that have RNA rather than DNA. We all put trust in a great many things as we can not be experts in everything nor have the time to test everything ourselves. You trust science as well if you have been to the doctor.

 

[omega2xx]

Look at land mammals and see none of them have fins. Ask yourself how they can get characteristics from parents without the gene. Then come up with testable ideas to explain it and then test the ideas. That will be scientific. In your description you have skipped coming up with ideas to explain the observations and to test the ideas that you have, so you are not using a scientific method.

If that could be tested, it would have been done long ago. Genetics says, the characteristics of the offsprng MUST come from the gene pool of it parents. That has been ;roven.

When you "Wonder why a land animal surviving very well on land would ever become a sea creature where the environment at first would be very hostile to it survival" you are not proceeding from observations to testable ideas. The idea you have put forward is that there is nothing to investigate, but to call it Science you should then come up with ways to test that idea. Science means observing, then producing ideas to explain and then testing thoroughly. If you would conclude that "That would violate the laws of genetics" then you must test that idea first and ask "Can genes change?" "How can I test whether genes can change or not to make sure that I am making a repeatable conclusion?"

There is no evidence the environment for Pakacetus was hostile. Also , if it was, it would become extinct before evolution could make it adapt. Also during its early stages, the sea wold be much more hostile for a land animal.

I am not arguing about God's mercy. The creation-scientix like error in the reasoning which I want to point out the fallacial conclusion that "The Bible says God is merciful and therefore my mom could not possibly be in pain." It is denial of observations of real life based upon a authoritative interpretation of the Bible. It is saying "I refuse to accept what my senses are telling me." It is not scientific. It is argument from an authority, like was done in the Middle Ages in Europe where people refused to accept that Earth went around the Sun.

The Bible does not say we will no have pain in this life. In fact it says we will have tribulation.

 

[jeager106]

I'm 100% in favor of the theory of evolutionary creation.


Really I don't know how mankind got here but we are here and
generally screwing things up.
Sad what?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm 100% in favor of the theory of evolutionary creation.


Really I don't know how mankind got here but we are here and
generally screwing things up.
Sad what?

Speak for yourself?

 

[jeager106]

Funny.
That was a general statement and you know it.
However I admit to making a LOT of mistakes in my lifetime.

 

[jeager106]

Can salt water fish live in fresh water and vice versa?

Well, yeah.
Some can but I fail to see the point in this discussion.

https://www.quora.com/Can-salt-water-fish-live-in-fresh-water-and-vice-versa.
Sharks are generally thought to be a salt water species but sharks have
been found (caught) hundreds of miles up stream of fresh water.

How long salt water fish can live in fresh water is debatable.
I'm not even close to very well versed in such matters.
google if ya like.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If that could be tested, it would have been done long ago. Genetics says, the characteristics of the offsprng MUST come from the gene pool of it parents. That has been ;roven.

To be scientific there must be ongoing research, ongoing questioning and personal investment in research. For example the periodic table is not scientific without someone studying it and checking it. The day that it becomes an accepted and unquestionable thing is the day it becomes Aristotelian and science disappears from the world. It will be a statue crumbling instead of a tree growing.

There is no evidence the environment for Pakacetus was hostile. Also , if it was, it would become extinct before evolution could make it adapt. Also during its early stages, the sea wold be much more hostile for a land animal.

Please do not call mere thought experiments science. They are choices not science. No experiments and no personal risk = not science.

The Bible does not say we will no have pain in this life. In fact it says we will have tribulation.

Jesus says this to his Jewish disciples, but there's nothing new about suffering for them. They've been having tribulation all their lives already, living under Roman conquerors. He's telling them that he's not going to instantly transform their situation and that they have to keep living under the Roman thumb. The message is controversial, because he's telling them that hunger and thirst for righteousness is enough to bring it about. He's telling them to live as if in a dream until the dream becomes real, to accept Roman rule and other problems as a form of discipline. For you and me, today, there is a lot less tribulation. We aren't living under the Romans and facing a violent and barbaric future. Things are quite peachy relatively speaking as we live with the gifts of the lives spent making ours better.

 

[Reggie Miller]

After carefully reading Mr. Skwim's posts it is obvious that Mr. Skwim is biased against Creationism. Time to move on to the next thread.

 

[omega2xx]

To be scientific there must be ongoing research, ongoing questioning and personal investment in research. For example the periodic table is not scientific without someone studying it and checking it.

Scientific research will continue as long a man has a mind.

The day that it becomes an accepted and unquestionable thing is the day it becomes Aristotelian and science disappears from the world. It will be a statue crumbling instead of a tree growing.
Please do not call mere thought experiments science. They are choices not science. No experiments and no personal risk = not science.

I never do. That is what evolutionists do.

Jesus says this to his Jewish disciples, but there's nothing new about suffering for them. They've been having tribulation all their lives already, living under Roman conquerors. He's telling them that he's not going to instantly transform their situation and that they have to keep living under the Roman thumb. The message is controversial, because he's telling them that hunger and thirst for righteousness is enough to bring it about. He's telling them to live as if in a dream until the dream becomes real, to accept Roman rule and other problems as a form of discipline. For you and me, today, there is a lot less tribulation. We aren't living under the Romans and facing a violent and barbaric future. Things are quite peachy relatively speaking as we live with the gifts of the lives spent making ours better.

Agreed. In the OT God punished the Jews when they got away from Him, but He never destroyed them completely. Every year since America was considered a Christian nation, it has gotten farther away from God. I believe we will be punished sometime in the near future(50-100 years). Hope I am wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

I know you don't think you're using the wrong terminology, but you're using the wrong terminology...

Not that it really matters, but science applies Theories, like the Theory of Gravity - or Germ Theory - to our everyday life in attempts of answering questions that arise from daily observation. "Hey... I wonder why the Sun rises and sets everyday. Could there be some force that keeps the Earth and the Sun connected?" Or, "Man, I wonder if my overuse of antibiotics will somehow apply an artificial environmental pressure on certain pathogens, leaving only super resistant successive generations to dominate human illnesses..."

Those theories have been applied, made predictions, and "proven" things about the world around us. So too has Evolutionary Theory.

http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:

• Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
  
  
  
• Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
  
  
  
• There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
  
  
  
• In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
  
  
  
• It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
  
  
  
• From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
  
  
  
• In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
  
  
  
• Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
  
  
  
• In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
  Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The TheoryThis challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
  
  
  
• Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
  The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
  
  
  
  
• A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
  
  
  
• The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
  This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
  
  
  
  
• An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
  Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
  
  Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
  
  It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

I believe in the KISS principle, so I don't answer post that long. I will only correct your last 2 statements.

Evolution is the master of predicting but has no evidence to suppo0rt what they predict. There is no scientific way a land animal can evolve into a sea creature, not matter what the water was. This is the typical evolutionist theme---we predicted it and since we have different whale fossils, and since they are mammals, they evolved from land animals that were mammals. Have you for gotten how many land animals are mammals? Why pick on one and not the others? There is absolutely no evidence linking pakicetus to whales. It is a necessary assumption because if the link can't be made, evolution is exposed for the fraud it is.

The biggest farce in whale evolution is thinking a land animal surviving very well on land, would need to enter a more hostile environment. That refutes a basic doctrine of evolution, natural selection.

.---Pakicetus was a land animal. It did not live in any kind of water at all.

 

[omega2xx]

After carefully reading Mr. Skwim's posts it is obvious that Mr. Skwim is biased against Creationism. Time to move on to the next thread.

One doesn't not even need a careful reading his his comments. To his credit, he does not hide it. Now think about this. What we say to him, is read by others. What we say, may help other see that we are right and he is wrong. That is the only reason I continue to beat a dead horse.

 

[omega2xx]

Q. Why oh why do you make up things like this? Things that can be so easily checked and refuted?

What is obvious is that you didn't refute it with science. For some reason evolutionist think if they say something it is true. Now if you think I am wrong, do some research on pakicetus, you will see that I am right and you are wrong. You have not done what you said I should do. I can't think for the word that describes what that says. I thinkit starts with an H. O well it will come to me later.

A.

IMO, it's because like so many of the assertions creationists come up with, nothing claimed as fact is ever expected to be doubted,* which I believe is a carryover from the compact the pulpit (the authority) has established with its flock (its eager sheep):

Unvoiced assertion: "Whatever I say is unquestionably true."
Unvoiced acceptence: "Whatever he says is unquestionably true. But more importantly, I want it to be true. "​

Do you ever give examples or are just practicing pontificating? You don't need more practice, you are quite proficient at it now.​

Wake up omega2xx. People here are a lot smarter than you seem to think.

Another silly remark. You don't know my opinion of the intelligence of the people in the r. So will give it too you..I think most of them are very smart. Some are not, but I will not name them. The less intelligent ones are easy to identify. They have to resort to insults instead of discussion.

*

This is why every creationist site I've ever visited has been filled with ignorance and outright lies---OUTRIGHT LIES, and from Christians no less. Who would have thunk!---Everything they say is expected to be unquestionably accepted as true. And the lies don't really matter because they know that very, very few will ever be questioned, particularly by members of the choir. And those nonmembers who do question them are irrelevant because their questioning seldom, if ever, makes it into the pages of creationist propaganda.

More pontification and no examples YAWN