New whale fossil represents intermediate stage between foot-powered and tail-powered swimming

a reply to: Raggedyman

Childish?

How so? At least it's not riddled with literal ignorance.

Theres millions of fossils on record and they all paint a picture. Do you even know how taxonomy works?

a reply to: Quadrivium

sigh - science can demonstrate the link between you and your grandfather - without needing to examine your mother

thats the best way i can put it - in a manner that creationists might comprehend

Crazy how desperate evolutionists are to declare new species and find supposed missing links. How did they identify it as anything new? The skull is mostly entirely missing:





You guys eat this stuff up without actually addressing the evidence at hand. The supposed "vertebral elongation" is referring to a 0.4mm (0.015 inch) increase in posterior vertebrae size... Do you even read this stuff? That's pathetic. The fact that this is newsworthy for evolutionary theory shows how little evidence there actually is for it.

a reply to: cooperton

You missed the point entirely suggest reading the paper. The vertebrae size had to increase in order to handle stress from tail. Each one increased in size and that makes them stronger than the earlier proto whales.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You assume too much.

My grandfather and a 4 million old fossil are COMPLETELY different.
If you do not see that, then I see why you are confused.

I have had a thought for YEARS.
Evolutionists (yes it's a word, get over it) believe in natural selection.
Evolution is only adaptation. Life is given the ability to survive. It is based on environmental influence. If the climate changes in an environment animals will start changing according on a microscopic level.
Some science(tist) are starting to show just that.
Life WAS GIVEN the ability to change, to adapt, to survive.

a reply to: strongfp

So you jump from "do you know how Evolution works" to " do you know how taxonomy works".
Seriously, we are not attacking your religion. There is no reason to ASSUME others are stupid because you are stuck in your dogma.
All because this is what you BELIEVE does not mean it is true.
Open your mind.
We honestly have no idea other than speculation and assumptions about these fossils.

a reply to: Quadrivium

What dogma? Science? Are you seriously suggesting science is wrong?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Raggedyman

Childish?

How so? At least it's not riddled with literal ignorance.

Theres millions of fossils on record and they all paint a picture. Do you even know how taxonomy works?

Prove it, prove that fossils mean anything other than something lived then died
Science me into submission

Millions of fossils prove millions of things died, it doesn’t even prove any had offspring, faith is all you have displayed
Your concept of science and evolution is childish

Taxonomy? Not sure you understand the word science

a reply to: strongfp

Do you know how many times in history science was manipulated to sell a product, how many times scientists have made wrong assumptions
Are you saying that scientists are perfect

www.theguardian.com...

Science can be falsified and stupid scientists make stupid theory and discoveries

a reply to: Raggedyman

Following that logic everything becomes faith. Which I have no problem with, ultimately everything is in essence faith. That being said, there's a difference blind faith, and faith in which you have evidence.

I have faith when I look both ways and see no cars coming that I will be safe when I cross the street. I'll most likely be right, the odds are in my favor. IF I cross the street without looking, say, cell phone in hand, taking blind faith that I'll be fine. Well I might be, but the chances I'm not are drastically increased. Both are still a form of faith.

So, yeah, ok, science is based on faith, because breaking everything down, all things are based on faith. That being said, I'm not going to place my faith in a book written long ago about a religion that plagiarized other religions that came before it, that can never grow or change as new information presents itself or contradicts it, when, I can instead place it on science which is the ever improving study of the world and what's in it, tested time and time again, and capable of changing adjusting and growing as new evidence presents itself. Will science always be right? Of course not, but when it's not, that's new information that can help it grow and improve, creating better predictions and understanding later on.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Quadrivium

What dogma? Science? Are you seriously suggesting science is wrong?

1. You are confusing your dogma with science.

2. Are you seriously suggesting science had never been wrong?

Your post proves my point COMPLETELY. Your view of science is a form of dogma that (in your mind) is beyond question.

a reply to: Quadrivium

If you dont accept evolution as a scientific fact that's fine.

But dont say it's wrong, or a hoax, its probably the most accepted fact in all of scientific fields, to the point where its even now being used in astro physics and other fields that study the over all universe. It's not just bound to biology.

I know this site and it doesnt matter how much evidence is given some people will just stonewall any of it to try and disprove it.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Of course science is wrong. It's wrong quite often. That's the beauty of science. Whereas Religion is completely incapable of admitting or even being allowed to be wrong. It must be not be questioned, and must be accepted, as is. It can never change or grow. Science is often wrong, it allows itself to be wrong, and can grow and learn from it's mistakes.

The fact that science can be wrong is one of it's greatest strengths. We learn more from our mistakes and failures than we do our strength. The biggest weakness of religion is it cannot and will not do so, and will steadfastly refuse to accept it has any failures. It cannot grow and learn from it's failures.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Quadrivium

Of course science is wrong. It's wrong quite often. That's the beauty of science. Whereas Religion is completely incapable of admitting or even being allowed to be wrong. It must be not be questioned, and must be accepted, as is. It can never change or grow. Science is often wrong, it allows itself to be wrong, and can grow and learn from it's mistakes.

The fact that science can be wrong is one of it's greatest strengths. We learn more from our mistakes and failures than we do our strength. The biggest weakness of religion is it cannot and will not do so, and will steadfastly refuse to accept it has any failures. It cannot grow and learn from it's failures.

Yet we have the following;:

What dogma? Science? Are you seriously suggesting science is wrong?

Some people consider science as a religion. They view it exactly like you said when you were talking about religion and how it can't be wrong.

a reply to: Quadrivium

You're taking it far too literal. Loosen up a little.

Science isnt a religion, it accepts ridicule, criticism to build upon it.

It has no holy books, places of worship, and all that jazz.

I have faith when I look both ways and see no cars coming that I will be safe when I cross the street.

I don't think that is faith. Faith is more like crossing the street without looking in the belief that a higher power is why you make it across the street. If you make it that is.

Looking both ways is you establishing you belief on data that you've gathered about crossing the street and have decided based on trusting the accuracy of that data that you are able to cross.

Not the same thing at all. But it depends on how exactly you use words like Faith, Belief, Trust, etc. as they are similar and used for each other with not always the same meaning.

The only people that consider science a religion are those who are trying to defend their religion by spinning the facts...

a reply to: strongfp

It does not matter who it is. When I show the hypocrisy of the things they say, they always say much the same as you.
Do you even know how religion works?
Webster dictionary. Your form of religion is towards the bottom but it is still there.
When you make a statement such as :
"What dogma? Science? Are you seriously suggesting science is wrong?"
The least you could do is loosen up a little and admit it for what it is.

a reply to: Akragon

Who said science is a religion?
It most definitely is not.
Yet some people view it as such. They put faith in it and can not admit that the people doing it make mistakes.
As can be seen with strongfp's post.