[_ Old Earth _] Article of Whale and Dolphin Evolution

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, thanks for the answer/question. Ok. I'm going to take a stabe at your question on which part is missing from the evolution chain of the whale. The part which I most certainly believe the evolution commuity wants to get rid of is, Now this might be a small thing to you and other evolutionist. I have faith in this is Exactly the reason a whale has always been a whale.

In other words, you can't think of one, so instead, you want to argue that science wants to do away with God.

Bad choice. For a number of reasons, starting with the fact that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

Note photo, a picture is worth a thousand words, in this case millions..

Hmmm... you do know that picture is a metaphor for God and His church, don't you? The fact that God loves us doesn't mean that He didn't produce the variety of life naturally.

Thanks for your tacit admission.

 

[freeway]

In other words, you can't think of one, so instead, you want to argue that science wants to do away with God.

The Barbarian says thinking that barb has won the debate, or hoping that I have no such information to refute barbarian claim. Again I like to state plainly, there is no proof of the evolution of the whale form the hoofed mammal. The proof for the non existent of evolution would take a hole new thread. Now if you look at the pictures you can plainly see the difference between the two and there again is no proof of a common ancestor, no matter how much faith you have in evolution. A common Creator Yes... Also if you want to say, the picture of the whale is showing what? that the evolution process is going to make him start growing legs again after all he is on land in the picture ;)

Bad choice. For a number of reasons, starting with the fact that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

I can not say nor can you how much faith Darwin had in a supreme being, My question to you, if you know what part of life did he attribute to a supreme being God just flew by and abandoned us. Because Darwin knew nothing of how a cell really works or the millions of missing links that he hoped would be found, and has never been. He said: himself if the fossils can not be found to support his theory, then his theory is dead. All we need to do is kick dirt on it.

Hmmm... you do know that picture is a metaphor for God and His church, don't you? The fact that God loves us doesn't mean that He didn't produce the variety of life naturally.

The Barbarian says about the picture I posted of Jesus and the lamb.
No Barbarian, I thought someone actually took a picture of Jesus. I was just showing who you evolutionist are trying to get out of the picture. come on.. really

Thanks for your tacit admission

.
nice stab at scarcasm....

 

[Crying Rock]

And so you continue to avoid addressing any of the evidence and argument you have been shown. This is evasiveness, no matter how much you shout that it isn't.

I'm not avoiding what you have presented. I just find it very unconvincing.

 

[Crying Rock]

In other words, you can't think of one, so instead, you want to argue that science wants to do away with God.

The Barbarian says thinking that barb has won the debate, or hoping that I have no such information to refute barbarian claim. Again I like to state plainly, there is no proof of the evolution of the whale form the hoofed mammal. The proof for the non existent of evolution would take a hole new thread. Now if you look at the pictures you can plainly see the difference between the two and there again is no proof of a common ancestor, no matter how much faith you have in evolution. A common Creator Yes... Also if you want to say, the picture of the whale is showing what? that the evolution process is going to make him start growing legs again after all he is on land in the picture ;)

[quote:3bnisdu4]Bad choice. For a number of reasons, starting with the fact that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

I can not say nor can you how much faith Darwin had in a supreme being, My question to you, if you know what part of life did he attribute to a supreme being God just flew by and abandoned us. Because Darwin knew nothing of how a cell really works or the millions of missing links that he hoped would be found, and has never been. He said: himself if the fossils can not be found to support his theory, then his theory is dead. All we need to do is kick dirt on it.

Hmmm... you do know that picture is a metaphor for God and His church, don't you? The fact that God loves us doesn't mean that He didn't produce the variety of life naturally.

The Barbarian says about the picture I posted of Jesus and the lamb.
No Barbarian, I thought someone actually took a picture of Jesus. I was just showing who you evolutionist are trying to get out of the picture. come on.. really

Thanks for your tacit admission

.
nice stab at scarcasm....[/quote:3bnisdu4]

Your images demonstrate nicely what I call denial. Kudos.

download/file.php?id=1582

download/file.php?id=1581

 

[lordkalvan]

And so you continue to avoid addressing any of the evidence and argument you have been shown. This is evasiveness, no matter how much you shout that it isn't.

I'm not avoiding what you have presented. I just find it very unconvincing.

Then explain why. Provide an evidence-based alternative explanation.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian suggests that freeway tell us what stage between land ungulates and whales could not evolve by gradual evolution)

(Freeway declines to do so)

Barbarian observes:
In other words, you can't think of one, so instead, you want to argue that science wants to do away with God.

The Barbarian says thinking that barb has won the debate, or hoping that I have no such information to refute barbarian claim.

The fact that you declined to tell us what stage in the evolution of whales could not evolve pretty much settles that.

Again I like to state plainly, there is no proof of the evolution of the whale form the hoofed mammal.

Bald assertions won't help. Answering my question might help, if you could think of something. Try again. Tell me what necessary stage between a land ungulate and a whale is impossible.

The proof for the non existent of evolution would take a hole new thread. Now if you look at the pictures you can plainly see the difference between the two and there again is no proof of a common ancestor, no matter how much faith you have in evolution.

Sorry. For that you need evidence, not blind disbelief.

Barbarian, regarding the old slander that evolution is to remove God:
Bad choice. For a number of reasons, starting with the fact that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

I can not say nor can you how much faith Darwin had in a supreme being,

Enough to attribute the origin of life to Him. It's the final sentence in "The Origin of Species."

My question to you, if you know what part of life did he attribute to a supreme being God just flew by and abandoned us.

That's not part of his theory, either. You'd do better if you argued against the theory, instead of making up things you wish it was about.

Because Darwin knew nothing of how a cell really works or the millions of missing links that he hoped would be found, and has never been.

Note that I challenged you to name an intermediate that was necessary and absent, and you declined to do so. Since you're so confident that there are none, it's odd that you backed away from the challenge.

Barbarian observes:
Hmmm... you do know that picture is a metaphor for God and His church, don't you? The fact that God loves us doesn't mean that He didn't produce the variety of life naturally.

No Barbarian, I thought someone actually took a picture of Jesus. I was just showing who you evolutionist are trying to get out of the picture.

Evolutionary theory was established by men who acknowledged God. Both Wallace and Darwin where theists when they jointly announced their findings. And many of the men who established modern evolutionary theory were also theists.

As you should know by now, I have repeatedly acknowledged that God is the Creator of nature and the evolutionary process. So are many of my fellow scientists. Let's keep it clean, um?

And now, I think it's time for you to answer my question.

 

[freeway]

"The Barbarian"](Barbarian suggests that freeway tell us what stage between land ungulates and whales could not evolve by gradual evolution)

Barbarian keeps asking me to show him proof of something that did not happen, my answer again the hole evolution theory, where are the missing links, you know the million that should show how the leggs of the ungulates got shorter and shorter and shorter and shorter. Not just fossils of the so called huge leaps of the evoluton chain.. show me them and I'll submit...

(Freeway declines to do so) barb says:

freeway like to do other things, other than spending all my time on here, like playing my guitar, wood working, family etc etc. so if don't answer within 5 minutes it not because I have turned tail and ran..

Barbarian observes:
In other words, you can't think of one, so instead, you want to argue that science wants to do away with God.

freeway thinks that the barb tries to hard to tell freeway what freeway is thinking..

 

[freeway]

Sorry. For that you need evidence, not blind disbelief. says the barb

.

blind faith, you mean like in evolution. that kind of blind faith. Yes proof is needed.

barb says:
Note that I challenged you to name an intermediate that was necessary and absent, and you declined to do so. Since you're so confident that there are none, it's odd that you backed away from the challenge.

I believe I've answered that question serveral times, just show me the missing fossil, after all Darwin whom you put your faith in said the fossil record should show this or..... wait for it..... "my theory is dead" unquote...

Evolutionary theory was established by men who acknowledged God. Both Wallace and Darwin where theists when they jointly announced their findings. And many of the men who established modern evolutionary theory were also theists.

Yes even though their theory has been proven dead. I'll say it again the fossil record does not support evolution no matter how many times you say it does.

As you should know by now, I have repeatedly acknowledged that God is the Creator of nature and the evolutionary process. So are many of my fellow scientists. Let's keep it clean, um?

I've never question you being a Christian. YOU just have your faith in the wrong people... ie Darwin..

 

[freeway]

Barbarian... this is off topic and this is all I will say about it..
Charles Darwin, the author of THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION in 1859 and the champion of evolution, renounced his evolutionary theory and became a Christian on his deathbed. This was reported by noblewoman Lady Hope who said she visited Darwin at his home in England at the close of his life. She described him as reading the book of Hebrews in the New Testament of the Bible. She also said that he regarded his writings about evolution to be questions that people made into a religion. Lady Hope said Darwin asked her to conduct a meeting outside a summer house he owned so he could hear the singing of the hymns.

The question of whether Charles Darwin accepted Christianity and rejected evolution is an emotional and intense one. To many Christians, Darwin is a villain who articulated a godless creation. To others, he is a brilliant hero who led the way to an enlightened view of where we came from. There are researchers and authors who have worked hard to prove and disprove any notion that he converted to Christianity and TruthOrFiction.com's conclusion is that when all is said and done, there is not enough good evidence that the story is true. We stop short of declaring it fiction, but regard it as not sufficiently proven. The report about Darwin's change of heart comes from one person, Lady Hope, an energetic Nineteenth Century Christian, while many members of Darwin's family denied it and there is nothing from Darwin's friends, colleagues, his own statements or writings to substantiate it. If Darwin did experience something so dramatic as a conversion to Jesus Christ and a complete revision of the theory of evolution that characterized his life and work, there isn't a shred of evidence of it outside of the claims of Lady Hope.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm
to You my question is, this may not be proof that Darwin recanted his theory on evolution? But the real question to you, is how can you disprove it? food for thought

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian... this is off topic and this is all I will say about it..
Charles Darwin, the author of THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION in 1859 and the champion of evolution, renounced his evolutionary theory and became a Christian on his deathbed. This was reported by noblewoman Lady Hope who said she visited Darwin at his home in England at the close of his life. She described him as reading the book of Hebrews in the New Testament of the Bible. She also said that he regarded his writings about evolution to be questions that people made into a religion. Lady Hope said Darwin asked her to conduct a meeting outside a summer house he owned so he could hear the singing of the hymns.

Total myth. It's such a crock that even AIG has it on their list of "Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ion-legend

to You my question is, this may not be proof that Darwin recanted his theory on evolution? But the real question to you, is how can you disprove it? food for thought

I can't prove there aren't orange leprechauns hiding in your attic. By your argument, we should then believe in orange leprechauns. This tale is particularly outlandish, since by Darwin's death, most educated Christians in Britain accepted evolution.

Truth is a stronger thing than provability.

 

[Barbarian]

blind faith, you mean like in evolution. that kind of blind faith.

Here's a way to test that; ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so,", it's blind faith. If he starts citing evidence, it's science.

Barbarian observes:
Note that I challenged you to name an intermediate that was necessary and absent, and you declined to do so. Since you're so confident that there are none, it's odd that you backed away from the challenge.

I believe I've answered that question serveral times,

Nope. So far, you've ducked that one. What necessary stage in the evolution from land animal to whale is impossible? It might be best to admit that you can't think of one.

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory was established by men who acknowledged God. Both Wallace and Darwin where theists when they jointly announced their findings. And many of the men who established modern evolutionary theory were also theists.

Yes even though their theory has been proven dead.

Simple assertions aren't going to do you much good. Given that the vast majority of biologists accept evolutionary theory, there's really no point in denying it.

I'll say it again the fossil record does not support evolution no matter how many times you say it does.

I know you want us to believe it, but when I offer you a chance to show us, you back away from it.

Barbarian observes:
As you should know by now, I have repeatedly acknowledged that God is the Creator of nature and the evolutionary process. So are many of my fellow scientists. Let's keep it clean, um?

I've never question you being a Christian. YOU just have your faith in the wrong people... ie Darwin..

I have no faith in Darwin at all. The parts of his theory that have stood up in light of the evidence, I accept. The parts that have not, I don't accept. That's the way science works. You should put more faith in God and less in creationist leaders who know no more than you do about it.

 

[freeway]

Barbarian observes:
Note that I challenged you to name an intermediate that was necessary and absent, and you declined to do so. Since you're so confident that there are none, it's odd that you backed away from the challenge.
Also: Nope. So far, you've ducked that one. What necessary stage in the evolution from land animal to whale is impossible? It might be best to admit that you can't think of one.

Oh my Lord. You are asking me to name or show a missing link? There your missing links not mine.. This is such a bait and trap question because there is no proof of a missing link and here your are trying your hardest on word games to get me to name one. Look at the picture and you show me the evidence of a missing link, you know what kind, a picture not a drawing…

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory was established by men who acknowledged God. Both Wallace and Darwin where theists when they jointly announced their findings. And many of the men who established modern evolutionary theory were also theists.

That fact is barbarian is that most every evolutionist does not want to recognise a Creator so they push this fairy tail of a theory. This kind of logic is kind of like saying Satan had a hand in the redemption of mankind. Just makes no sense, and its a bold face lie from Satan himself…

Barb says: I have no faith in Darwin at all. The parts of his theory that have stood up in light of the evidence, I accept. The parts that have not, I don't accept. That's the way science works. You should put more faith in God and less in creationist leaders who know no more than you do about it.

Yea that’s what you say. But My faith is in God, He doesn’t use a load speaker to talk to His creation He uses the bible along with fellow Christians. Be it creationist, IDers, or lots of books on the subject by other Christians.. Fact still remains, no fossils no evolution..

 

[Brokendoll]

Barbarian... this is off topic and this is all I will say about it..
Charles Darwin, the author of THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION in 1859 and the champion of evolution, renounced his evolutionary theory and became a Christian on his deathbed. This was reported by noblewoman Lady Hope who said she visited Darwin at his home in England at the close of his life. She described him as reading the book of Hebrews in the New Testament of the Bible. She also said that he regarded his writings about evolution to be questions that people made into a religion. Lady Hope said Darwin asked her to conduct a meeting outside a summer house he owned so he could hear the singing of the hymns.

Total myth. It's such a crock that even AIG has it on their list of "Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ion-legend

Exactly, and it is also irrelevant.
Here is a short article I wrote on just that subject.

 

[Brokendoll]

Barbarian observes:
Note that I challenged you to name an intermediate that was necessary and absent, and you declined to do so. Since you're so confident that there are none, it's odd that you backed away from the challenge.
Also: Nope. So far, you've ducked that one. What necessary stage in the evolution from land animal to whale is impossible? It might be best to admit that you can't think of one.

Oh my Lord. You are asking me to name or show a missing link? There your missing links not mine.. This is such a bait and trap question because there is no proof of a missing link and here your are trying your hardest on word games to get me to name one. Look at the picture and you show me the evidence of a missing link, you know what kind, a picture not a drawing…

No, he is asking you at what point or stage, on it's way to becoming what we now know as whales, did the land-dwelling ancestors of whales stop, and due to what mechanism.

Look, we know that the ancestors of whales once dwelled on land and we have the fossils as evidence to back that claim up, as well as taxonimical and genetic evidence in currently living whales.

Now you need to show us why you think we are wrong.

Don't tell us we are wrong. Show us why.

 

[freeway]

snipe>>.. getting to long...

No, he is asking you at what point or stage, on it's way to becoming what we now know as whales, did the land-dwelling ancestors of whales stop, and due to what mechanism.

First off again, there is no, none, na na, evidence to prove this has ever happen. How is it we have proof that there is plant and animals alike alive today that was around and living 500 million yrs ago by your time line. These plants and animal have very little change in there makeup thus =mirco. Now if we find a dead extinct animal, bug, bird, reptile and although there fossil tell us nothing about if they had reproduced anything. Well when you guys find these fossil then OMG we found a missing link, no you found a dead possum or what ever..

brokendoll says again:
Look, we know that the ancestors of whales once dwelled on land and we have the fossils as evidence to back that claim up, as well as taxonimical and genetic evidence in currently living whales.

I just love that, we have fossils! what you have are nothing more than extinct mammals etc. where are the millions of fossils that show the slow transitional steps from one species to a species that looks nothing like the former... where?

Now you need to show us why you think we are wrong. says brokendoll with authority

Have have again and again...beside that, read the headliner for OP.. your burden...

Don't tell us we are wrong. Show us why.again with authority::

Being yourself a diehard evolutionist, you do not believe it when we show you.. can only pray that God opens your eyes to the truth...

 

[Crying Rock]

And so you continue to avoid addressing any of the evidence and argument you have been shown. This is evasiveness, no matter how much you shout that it isn't.

I'm not avoiding what you have presented. I just find it very unconvincing.

Then explain why. Provide an evidence-based alternative explanation.

Not my problem. The onus is on you to prove that macroevolution occurred.

You've failed to do so.

You are the one making the claim. No evidence-based alternative explanation is required on my part.

 

[lordkalvan]

Then explain why. Provide an evidence-based alternative explanation.

Not my problem. The onus is on you to prove that macroevolution occurred.

You've failed to do so.

You are the one making the claim. No evidence-based alternative explanation is required on my part.

Continued evasion noted. Are you quite incapable of explaining why the evidence I have presented fails to persuade you of either the likelihood of evolution or the probability that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals? All you have contributed to this 'discussion' so far is flat denial and a refusal to describe exactly what evidence you would find persuasive of either phenomenon. The fact that you are unable to provide an alternative explanation for the origin of whales and cannot do any more than simply nay-say the evidence you have been provided with quite clearly implies that you have no alternative explanation to offer and no critique of the arguments concerning the origins of whales from terrestrial animals. The claim has been made and substantiated: the ball is quite clearly in your court and in the absence of counterargument it would appear that the case has been unanswerably made.

 

[Barbarian]

I just love that, we have fossils! what you have are nothing more than extinct mammals etc. where are the millions of fossils that show the slow transitional steps from one species to a species that looks nothing like the former... where?

Horses, for example. Want to learn about it?

If you accepted God's creation as it is, you'd be closer to Him. Worth a try, um?

 

[freeway]

[quote:3iok69dc]I just love that, we have fossils! what you have are nothing more than extinct mammals etc. where are the millions of fossils that show the slow transitional steps from one species to a species that looks nothing like the former... where?

Horses, for example. Want to learn about it?

[/quote:3iok69dc]
barbaian if you are saying that horses as well as dogs are highly diversified creatures. Well I have to agree with you. But if you are again trying to make the assumption that this is proof again of how we, everything has evolved. Well sorry, looking at the pictures of the evolution of horse, I can see three of the five and would agree these are a variation of horses. To make a claim as this is another answer to evolution, Sorry horses still can come in all sizes and colors.

barbarian in self righteous states:
If you accepted God's creation as it is, you'd be closer to Him. Worth a try, um?

Barbarian I truly resent this remark, To have the nerve to say I am not close to my Lord Jesus. This kind of banter is something I would expect on an atheist website. If you want to continue to debate topics with me on any subject then remarks in this line is not acceptable.
Freeway, A born again child of God, For whom Jesus laid down His Life for! amen.

 

[jasoncran]

How does one reconcile something(evolution) which points away from design? When the bible, the Lords wrtitten and inspired word says that creation points toward him.