"The Truth About PhD Creationists"

[jonathan180iq]

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.

So now you admit that Evolutionary Theory makes accurate predictions? Isn't that initially all you asked for? Just ONE example?

Seems to me that you're now moving the goal posts, aren't you?

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

And yes, there is a very viable scientific way that land animals can evolve into sea creatures, and it's called Evolution. It's natural biological mechanisms that produce changes to species and to populations over time. Adaptation to environment is what transformed some types of birds into flightless penguins, for example. The exact same processes turned Pakicetus into Ambulocetus. Ambulocetus eventually evolved into Rhodocetus, which evolved into Dorudons, which you would probably recognize as dolphins, even though they weren't... and eventually into modern whales. If you want to dispute any of that, show me a dolphin or whale skeleton in a fossil layer that predates Pakicetus. Do that, and our entire understanding of Whale evolution will be thrown out... Doesn't it seem strange to you that not a single Scientist (Creationist or otherwise) has ever produced such a find?

And there is also direct genetic lineage between these organisms and their extant species. Whales and Hippos, for example, share vast amounts of their DNA together. If, as you say, there's no scientific way in which a land animal can evolve into a sea creature, why does such a connection exist? What about Hippos and Manatees? Penguins and Albatrosses? Bats and Hedgehogs? Corn and grass?

http://www.tethys.org/tethys/hippos-and-whales-common-ancestor/

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.

The short answer is that there are any number of factors that can cause populations to disperse or migrate to other areas. What makes you think it was surviving well on land? What makes you think the seas are a more hostile environment? Certainly you don't believe there was only ever one population of Pakicetus and that they all simultaneously moved into the water one day, right? If that's how you view the evolutionary process, you need to remove yourself from these conversations entirely.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_16
https://dlc.dcccd.edu/biology1-1/change-over-time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_distribution

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

You're either lying or you're willfully ignorant. This has been addressed multiple times in this thread by multiple people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus
"Pakicetus is an extinct genus of amphibious cetacean of the family Pakicetidae, which was endemic to modern Pakistanduring the Eocene.[1] The vast majority of paleontologists regard it as the most basal whale."

http://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/on-exhibit-posts/the-first-whale-pakicetus/
"Straddling the two worlds of land and sea, the wolf-sized animal was a meat eater that sometimes ate fish, according to chemical evidence. Pakicetus also exhibited characteristics of its anatomy that link it to modern cetaceans, a group made up of whales, porpoises, and dolphins.

First discovered by paleontologists in 1983, Pakicetus lived along the margins of a large shallow ocean, the Tethys Sea. Although it had the body of a land animal, its head had the distinctive long skull shape of a whale’s.

Over time, fossils also revealed that Pakicetus had an ear bone with a feature unique to whales and an ankle bone that linked it to artiodactyls, a large order of even-toed hoofed mammals that includes hippos, pigs, sheep, cows, deer, giraffes, antelopes, and even cetaceans, the only aquatic artiodactyls."

https://www.britannica.com/animal/Pakicetus
"Pakicetus, extinct genus of early cetacean mammals known from fossils discovered in 48.5-million-year-old river delta deposits in present-day Pakistan."

 

[omega2xx]

It's about intent.
To change minds, it's counter-productive to be offensive.

Agreed.

Perhaps you missed them.

I will share something I learned about things like that video and evolutionary websites. The Never and let me emphasize NEVER, provide any evidence. They don't have any.

I did not watch that video, but I stand by my statement. If you think there was any scientific evidence and present it to me, If I cant refute it, I will choke down a big plate of crow.

 

[jonathan180iq]

...so I don't answer posts that long.

Your "Keep It Simple Stupid" approach is part of the problem. If you'd take an extra five minutes and actually read what people are saying to you, and linking to you, you wouldn't come across as so blatantly ignorant of the topic you're attempting to dismantle.

I don't image you care much for the Biblical opinions of people who have never read the Bible, right? Why do you expect a different treatment when attempting to debate scientific topics, having no grasp of scientific principles yourself?

 

[omega2xx]

You asked for examples in this thread multiple times. I provided a short list, and a link to them, and you complain about the length of the post? That doesn't seem very genuine, does it?

If would have been a short list, I would have responded. FYI. over the years I have checked many links like you offered and not one of them ever presented any scientific evidence, so I no longer check them. This is between me and you. If you want to quote them fine, but I have stopped reading what they say.

In fairness, I suppose, you wanted someone to show you just "one thing" that evolution has ever gotten right. So we can just focus on the "one thing" that you bothered to respond to.

That is what I ask for. That would make it easier for you. Then all you have to do is use the one thy think is best to make your point.

It was an amphibious cetacean. Calling it a land animal, is either an understatement or a blatant inaccuracy - neither is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/220/4595/403
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/3692104
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20545/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20545/full

It was not and even your so-called whale experts used "land animal for pakicetus. Have you not seen the pictures of pakicetus your whale experts presented.

Again with the half-statements...Why do you do that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euryhaline
http://www.livescience.com/32167-can-saltwater-fish-live-in-fresh-water.html
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq1a.html

Now... I wonder if there are any evolutionary explanations as to why these things are the way that they are. I wonder if any predictions have every been made using evolutionary theory to help bridge the gap between one organismal function and another. I wonder if those predictions have ever been "proven" to be accurate. I wonder if any other alternative idea to biology can make such predictions.

I don't know. Evolutionist have been experimenting in this for years and to date have not proved one thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

I will share something I learned about things like that video and evolutionary websites. The Never and let me emphasize NEVER, provide any evidence. They don't have any.

I did not watch that video, but I stand by my statement. If you think there was any scientific evidence and present it to me, If I cant refute it, I will choke down a big plate of crow.

I don't watch such videos.
Not very informative to me.
But I do like one documentary....

 

[omega2xx]

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?

did that mutation cause the person to become something other than what it parents were? Did it cause a change of species? Perhaps your enjoy shooting your self in the head/

Typical quote mining, nothing more.

Then that should make it easy for you to refute, but you can't can you?

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

Do you really not understand that evolution REQUIRES a change of species. My parents, me, my son, my grand children and my great grandchildren are still the exact same species. That will continue as long as man continues to obey the first commandment in the Bible---be fruitful and multiply. After its kind is what we can observe and what we can repeat and it cant be falsified. Real science will not allow it.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't watch such videos.
Not very informative to me.
But I do like one documentary....

I didn't watch that on either, but I bet it made more sens the the first one. If get caught up today, I might go back and watch it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't watch that on either, but I bet it made more sens the the first one. If get caught up today, I might go back and watch it.

The one I posted is best because it's the shortest.....& it has nice accompanying music.

 

[omega2xx]

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

what others don't understand and cant refute are always labeled a strawman. Thanks for continuing the tradition.

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.

Quibble,quibble,quibble

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

I don't need to. The diaper crowd needs to update their understanding of evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

So now you admit that Evolutionary Theory makes accurate predictions? Isn't that initially all you asked for? Just ONE example?

Where do you see"accurate" In what I said? If you embellish what I say, I will usually catch you. I did not ask for a prediction, I ask for evidence.

Seems to me that you're now moving the goal posts, aren't you?

Not me. You have torn the goal post down thinking you have won the game.

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

And yes, there is a very viable scientific way that land animals can evolve into sea creatures, and it's called Evolution.

I know what it is called and I know they have absolutely no evidence an land animal can evolve into a sea creature. If there was you would present it to shut me up

It's natural biological mechanisms that produce changes to species and to populations over time.

Dond't tell me, show me. Don't forget to include the scientific evidence to support your opinions.

Adaptation to environment is what transformed some types of birds into flightless penguins, for example.

Wonderful. I can wait to see the evidence you must have forgotten to include.

The exact same processes turned Pakicetus into Ambulocetus. Ambulocetus eventually evolved into Rhodocetus, which evolved into Dorudons, which you would probably recognize as dolphins, even though they weren't... and eventually into modern whales. If you want to dispute any of that, show me a dolphin or whale skeleton in a fossil layer that predates Pakicetus. Do that, and our entire understanding of Whale evolution will be thrown out... Doesn't it seem strange to you that not a single Scientist (Creationist or otherwise) has ever produced such a find?

I don't have to refute anything that does not include evidence. All you have done is parrot the usual evo rhetoric.

And there is also direct genetic lineage between these organisms and their extant species. Whales and Hippos, for example, share vast amounts of their DNA together. If, as you say, there's no scientific way in which a land animal can evolve into a sea creature, why does such a connection exist? What about Hippos and Manatees? Penguins and Albatrosses? Bats and Hedgehogs? Corn and grass?

http://www.tethys.org/tethys/hippos-and-whales-common-ancestor/

http://www.tethys.org/tethys/hippos-and-whales-common-ancestor/

Sigh. Don't tell me, show me.

The short answer is that there are any number of factors that can cause populations to disperse or migrate to other areas. What makes you think it was surviving well on land? What makes you think the seas are a more hostile environment? Certainly you don't believe there was only ever one population of Pakicetus and that they all simultaneously moved into the water one day, right? If that's how you view the evolutionary process, you need to remove yourself from these conversations entirely.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_16
https://dlc.dcccd.edu/biology1-1/change-over-time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_distribution



You're either lying or you're willfully ignorant. This has been addressed multiple times in this thread by multiple people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus
"Pakicetus is an extinct genus of amphibious cetacean of the family Pakicetidae, which was endemic to modern Pakistanduring the Eocene.[1] The vast majority of paleontologists regard it as the most basal whale."

http://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/on-exhibit-posts/the-first-whale-pakicetus/
"Straddling the two worlds of land and sea, the wolf-sized animal was a meat eater that sometimes ate fish, according to chemical evidence. Pakicetus also exhibited characteristics of its anatomy that link it to modern cetaceans, a group made up of whales, porpoises, and dolphins.

First discovered by paleontologists in 1983, Pakicetus lived along the margins of a large shallow ocean, the Tethys Sea. Although it had the body of a land animal, its head had the distinctive long skull shape of a whale’s.

Over time, fossils also revealed that Pakicetus had an ear bone with a feature unique to whales and an ankle bone that linked it to artiodactyls, a large order of even-toed hoofed mammals that includes hippos, pigs, sheep, cows, deer, giraffes, antelopes, and even cetaceans, the only aquatic artiodactyls."

https://www.britannica.com/animal/Pakicetus
"Pakicetus, extinct genus of early cetacean mammals known from fossils discovered in 48.5-million-year-old river delta deposits in present-day Pakistan."

Unless your are willing to do something beside pontificate, this is a waste of my time. Have a nice day.

 

[omega2xx]

Your "Keep It Simple Stupid" approach is part of the problem. If you'd take an extra five minutes and actually read what people are saying to you, and linking to you, you wouldn't come across as so blatantly ignorant of the topic you're attempting to dismantle.

If they ever say anything I have never heard befor, I will respond. If they ever provide any real scientific evidence I will resond.

I don't image you care much for the Biblical opinions of people who have never read the Bible, right? Why do you expect a different treatment when attempting to debate scientific topics, having no grasp of scientific principles yourself?

It is really amusing that the only comment i get is that id you reject evolution it is because I don't understand science. Let me suggest you accept evolution because you don't understand science. If you understood genetics, you would reject evolution.

To date none or you have presented any scientific evidence for what you say. IMO have better grasp of genetics than any of you do.

I will give you a very simple question to see. What determines if the offspring will have bones?

 

[Skwim]

omega2xx, Today at 8:14 AM Last edited: Today at 8:22 AM

FYI, Instead of erasing everything in your post you also have the option of deleting the whole thing.


.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

In my opinion getting rid of our slave economy was a huge improvement. Life for orphans has improved in some ways although they are still vulnerable, and child abuse continues to be a problem. Life for widows and divorcees has probably improved. The poor are somewhat better off, and so are the mentally ill.

 

[Skwim]

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.

You hope that the wisdom of god doesn't prevail? How very odd for a Christian.


.

 

[Sapiens]

Sapiens said: ↑

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?

Typical quote mining, nothing more.

Then that should make it easy for you to refute, but you can't can you?

I did refute it. The ball is now in your court, you must either provide the full quote, in context, and show that the author actually held the views that you suggest or, as an alternative, cotton to being a sitinkin' lyin' quote miner.

Speakin' o' which; it amazes me that you have the temerity to attempt to hold forth as an anti-evolution expert when you demonstrate a lack of even a Junior High Biology class knowledge of the genetics of human eye color. I'd have though that your god, were he, she or it, real, would have sent a more knowledgeable champion. You off to a rather poor start and are clearly neither the Alpha nor the Omega here.

Did that mutation cause the person to become something other than what it parents were? Did it cause a change of species? Perhaps your enjoy shooting your self in the head/

Sapiens said: ↑
All fossils are intermediates just as your parents are intermediates between you and your grandparents.

Do you really not understand that evolution REQUIRES a change of species. My parents, me, my son, my grand children and my great grandchildren are still the exact same species. That will continue as long as man continues to obey the first commandment in the Bible---be fruitful and multiply. After its kind is what we can observe and what we can repeat and it cant be falsified. Real science will not allow it.

Evolution does not require a change in species, rather a change in species is the inevitable and eventual result of evolution. Every individuals is on it's way from what it once was to what it will some day be, different from what it's parent's were and different from what it's offspring will be ... it is a continuum.

BTW: Please define "species" and "kind," paying special attention to the genetic basis of said definitions, and the difference between the two concepts. OK? Else, don't use words when you don't know what they mean.

 

[McBell]

what others don't understand and cant refute are always labeled a strawman. Thanks for continuing the tradition.

Flying home to claim victory now?

 

[McBell]

Where do you see"accurate" In what I said?

I have yet to see anything accurate in any of your posts.

To be fair, I have not seen every one of your posts.
So it is possible you told someone "hello" somewhere I have not seen.

 

[McBell]

If they ever say anything I have never heard befor, I will respond.

rotflmao

So that is how you protect your ignorance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I read Sam Harris' A Letter to a Christian Nation today, and I liked that he brought up Creationist PhD. holders who do hold it in a science, but "bend science" to suit their religious needs, making them not scientists.
Too bad that letter will never be required high school reading.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

Gould was certainly well known, but then so were Bob Bakker, Roy Chapman Andrews, Barnum Brown, Edward Drinker Cope, Alfred Sherwood Romer, and Luis Alvarez. I reject something that each and every one of the said, I am sure ... that, my friend, is the signature of 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.

There are many intermediates. Here is a partial list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

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.

But it is the truth, I'd love to see you argue against it rather than just make baseless claims from ignorance,