-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
The Barbarian said:
Where is the fresh water coming from? Whales can't live off of seawater.
Bronzesnake
Member
- May 7, 2010
- 241
- 0
Don't you ever wonder why there are never any photos of these supposed transitional fossils?kenmaynard said:
All we ever see are illustrations.
Here's why...
This is the kind of dishonest "proof" evolution offers us.
Hey, if this is good enough for you then God bless you people.
I wouldn't be betting the farm on this kind of illustrated reality.
The critical bone structures which are needed to make this a transition are completely missing. But that never stops the diehard evolutionists, they simply take out the crayons and add the necessary bones in and they know their disciples will greedily eat it up once they supplement their nice colorings with language such as "we believe" and "could have" and "looks like" etc.
We really need to be more critical about what we accept as "evidence" as opposed to couldabeen, mightabeen, shouldabeen offerings that we are getting exclusively.
We want to believe so badly that we can’t see the obvious added bits and pieces, and we accept inference as though it were factual.
John Bronzesnake
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
Well, let's take a look...
Here's a photo of just one specimen:
Now, I'm pretty sure that you just copied what some dishonest creationist told you, and posted it here, without meaning to be deceptive. But I did tell you that if you posted material without reading all of it first, you would be accountable.
In the future, check to make sure you aren't being lied to, once again.
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
Barb, as a fellow Christian brother, I request you treat fellow brothers more respectfully (i.e.- comments relating to a brother's intelligence). I understand you're a very intelligent man, but please show a little compassion.
I'm not here to judge. I'm very imperfect.
Peace,
CR
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
B
It's not as though he hasn't been repeatedly shown that the source of those doctored quotes is dishonest. The bar is simple and clear enough; if you haven't read the article, you're asking for trouble if you post the supposed quote.
First ten times or so, I didn't criticize.
To err is human. To make the same error time and again is something less.
It's not as though he hasn't been repeatedly shown that the source of those doctored quotes is dishonest. The bar is simple and clear enough; if you haven't read the article, you're asking for trouble if you post the supposed quote.
First ten times or so, I didn't criticize.
To err is human. To make the same error time and again is something less.
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
Is this really a photograph of one specimen? What about the hammer?
How was the specimen found, while in situ?
I don't know the answers to my questions.
Please elaborate.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
Yes.
Common practice in such pictures. Gives the scale.
Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales
S. I. MADARa, J. G. M. THEWISSENb, S. T. HUSSAINc
aDepartment of Biology, Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio 44234, madarsi@hiram.edu
bDepartment of Anatomy, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, 4209 State Route 44, Rootstown, Ohio 44272, thewisse@neoucom.edu
cDepartment of Anatomy, Howard University, 520 W Street, Washington, D.C. 20059
Abstract
Continued excavation at the type locality of Ambulocetus natans led to the recovery of a majority of the axial skeleton of the holotype of this early Eocene cetacean, including both innominates, the sacrum, and most of the thoracic cage and thoracolumbar vertebral column. Additional appendicular, caudal, and cranial materials were also recovered, resulting in a specimen that is now approximately 80 percent complete. This new material allows refined interpretations of its functional morphology. Ambulocetus has a longer thoracolumbar column than that reported for later remingtonocetid and protocetid genera, suggesting that previous estimates of spinal length derived from models of mesonychid ancestry may be inaccurate. Ambulocetus also possesses a co-ossified ecto–mesocuneiform, a character found in some early and middle Eocene artiodactyls, but not mesonychids. New postcranial material provides further evidence of a systemic shift to aquatic locomotion.
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22(2):405-422. 2002
doi: 10.1671/0272-4634(2002)022[0405:AHROAN]2.0.CO;2
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
I see. So more of the specimen was recovered during a later excavation.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Thanks for clearing that up.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
Being three-dimensional, it's normal for fossils to be brought out a little at a time. The stone takes some time to remove.
However, AIG just removed some of the bones in their illustration. Note that the ones they claim were just imagined, turned up to be quite real. Unless you grant an amazing talent for visualizing missing bones to Thewissen, AIG was being blatantly dishonest here.
However, AIG just removed some of the bones in their illustration. Note that the ones they claim were just imagined, turned up to be quite real. Unless you grant an amazing talent for visualizing missing bones to Thewissen, AIG was being blatantly dishonest here.
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
When was the AIG article published? It's obvious that all the skeletal material was not excavated until the early 2000's. I wouldn't come right out and say that "AIG was being blatantly dishonest" unless you can show that consensus opinion indicated that the additional skeletal material belonged to the same specimen before the article was written.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
Crying Rock said:
Well, how about what they are currently telling people on their website? I just checked. They are still not telling the truth:
Other fossils have been claimed as whale ancestors since the exhibition was put together. A key one, and one of the most complete, is Ambulocetus ('walking whale'), announced in 1993. Major conclusions were made about its mode of walking, and about its tail structure, and yet the important fibula bones, pelvis, and tail bones were not found. Only one tail vertebra was found, and it was five metres away from the rest of the skeleton. But because the researchers assumed the skeleton was of a 'whale', they assumed a long tail for Ambulocetus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... whales.asp
Since they've been caught in the past misrepresenting what scientists have found, it's not surprising to catch them again.
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
I'm being lazy: Will you point me to the most current link on AIG addressing this issue.
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
The Barbarian said:
I don't have time to read the article. Could you please quote the portions of the article that are misleading people. I understand that this article was written 14 years ago:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... whales.asp
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
I just cited and linked the lie. And no, I don't think it's a good excuse that they wrote it a long time ago. If they know it's false,(and it's been brought to their attention more than once) and they have it on their website, they are lying.
That's how it is. Isn't the first or even the most egregious example from AIG. But it's still dishonesty.
That's how it is. Isn't the first or even the most egregious example from AIG. But it's still dishonesty.
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
The Barbarian said:
I'll write and ask them about it. If there is updated data they should relegate the article to the archives.
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
Crying Rock said:
