sooda
Veteran Member
Why do you reject it out of hand?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Chew On This, Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Why do you reject it out of hand?
Oh I just love these links.....
Shall I quote you some pearls from it...? (in blue)
"A fossilized whale with four legs, webbed feet and hoofed toes is revealing new details about the evolution and geographical spread of whales across the globe."
A whale with hoofed toes that may or may not have been webbed. (an assumption) The fact that it is identified as a whale is based on what? They don't say but we are expected to believe it just because they say it is.
Oh look! This must be a whale too!
It seems as if otters and capybaras have webbed feet as well, and can function on land and in the water.....but they have never transitioned into whales. Go figure....
"It's the oldest known whale found in that part of the world, and the most complete skeleton found outside of India and Pakistan. Scientists believe the creature — which resembled an otter — may have been an early form of whale that had not yet fully transitioned to living in water. The unusual discovery holds clues about how whales spread around the planet and indicates ancient whales settled in South America before North America."
The bits of this fossil that were found are shown above. The dotted lines are what was missing. How complete a picture do they really have, compared to what must be added by imagination?
It "may have been" a whale...? or not....?
"Clues"?...where is Agatha Christie when you need her?
"According to the surprisingly well-preserved fossil, the animal would have been around 11 feet long. It had a large tail and four legs with hoofed toes that were likely webbed, making the creature well-adapted to both land and sea."
"Researchers suggest the creatures likely crossed the south Atlantic Ocean from the western coast of Africa, assisted by surface currents."
Please give us more links like this......
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh I just love these links.....
Shall I quote you some pearls from it...? (in blue)
"A fossilized whale with four legs, webbed feet and hoofed toes is revealing new details about the evolution and geographical spread of whales across the globe."
A whale with hoofed toes that may or may not have been webbed. (an assumption) The fact that it is identified as a whale is based on what? They don't say but we are expected to believe it just because they say it is.
First error, not an assumption, a rational deduction. Please learn the difference. Webbing has evolved again and again, why would you think that it would not evolve in this case? I so wish that creationists could put away their fears and learn how to ask proper questions.
Oh look! This must be a whale too!LOL
It seems as if otters and capybaras have webbed feet as well, and can function on land and in the water.....but they have never transitioned into whales. Go figure....
You really can't be this foolish. If you don't know why they know it to be in the whale lineage ask questions. Besides the skull, the ear bones are very very telling. Only modern day whales have the same ears as the ancestors of whales. There are other features too, but it was the ears that first alerted the experts in the field.
"It's the oldest known whale found in that part of the world, and the most complete skeleton found outside of India and Pakistan. Scientists believe the creature — which resembled an otter — may have been an early form of whale that had not yet fully transitioned to living in water. The unusual discovery holds clues about how whales spread around the planet and indicates ancient whales settled in South America before North America."
The bits of this fossil that were found are shown above. The dotted lines are what was missing. How complete a picture do they really have, compared to what must be added by imagination?
It "may have been" a whale...? or not....?
"Clues"?...where is Agatha Christie when you need her?
Again, you should not jump to conclusions. Ask questions, if you ask the right people you will get answers.
"According to the surprisingly well-preserved fossil, the animal would have been around 11 feet long. It had a large tail and four legs with hoofed toes that were likely webbed, making the creature well-adapted to both land and sea."
"Researchers suggest the creatures likely crossed the south Atlantic Ocean from the western coast of Africa, assisted by surface currents."
Please give us more links like this......Read it again without the rose colored glasses....hilarious.
What rose colored glasses? You do not seem to understand that when you accuse others of doing things wrong you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Yet you have no evidence for your beliefs. Not one reliable bit of evidence supports your beliefs. You appear to be jealous of those that do have real evidence. This sort of post should almost be reportable since it is largely of a trolling nature.