Dinosaurs/Dragons/Evolution/Humans

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Didnt you know? This whale of chained events was broken right in half. Ive been meaning to come back and reply to this.

The key to this story is a fossil of a creature called Rodhocetus, which is portrayed as the first creature with legs changing into flippers and with the tail developing into a whale’s tail. Without it there is really no story, but recent disclosures undo the tale.

Dr Philip Gingerich, who found the fossil, and promoted the idea that Rodhocetus had a whale’s tail. The fossil is on display at the University of Michigan, but Dr Carl Werner noted that the part that would show the presence of the flukes (the rear wings) is missing. He asked about the missing tail bones and how they knew it had tail flukes.

Dr Gingerich replied,
“I speculated that it might have had a fluke … I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail.”

And the legs becoming flippers?

Dr. Werner noted on inspecting the fossil of Rodhocetus the absence of any foot/flipper bones. When he asked Dr Gingerich how he knew that the animal had flippers, Dr Gingerich said,

“Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale.”

Dr.Werner "It appears to me that there is no end to new conjectures of how whale evolution might have occurred. I say this because each museum that I visit has a different idea since the Rodhocetus story came out in 2007."

This is a single case of speculation being used to advance what we are supposed to believe as fact. This is institutional intentional misdirection. WHY?

There are many other problems with whale evolution. Museums and textbooks portray the fossil story as being clear-cut, yet evolutionists cannot even agree on which land animal gave rise to the whales. Based on fossil similarities of teeth, some paleontologists favoured hyena-like animals (Pachyaena), while others preferred a cat-like animal (Sinonyx). But after recent comparisons of DNA, molecular biologists decided hippos were the closest to a whale ancestor!

There are, of course, huge problems in converting a hippo-like creature into a whale. Not even the teeth are similar: hippos’ teeth are flat and rasp-like, good for grinding up vegetation, whereas the toothed whales have pointed, sharp teeth, used now for catching fish and other swimming animals.

adding source, im sure people will bitch about it being "creationist", sorry the'res no Discovery article revealing all this, it'd only embarass alot of big headed people.
creation.mobi...

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Tonsils and adenoids are part of the immune system, and the appendix is an organ used during fetal development and ARE NOT vestigial organs. Sorry if someone taught you differently, but they taught you wrong.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


All Alice proved was that many many many people calling themselves educated have been tricked by a picture we know is false.

reply to post by Climax


Your link goes to a page owned by Creation Ministries. The chances of them providing reputable evidence is minimal.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


I already said where it was from, knew people would try and dismiss it outright because of it, but it doesnt make it any less true.

I sure hope Bill Nye has alot more to say than "nuh-uh" when he debates Ken Hamm.
There is a reason the Richard Dawkins Foundation is scared of the dabate. Enough time has passed for the evidence against species turning into completly different species to be concluded.
Yes there is adaptation and "micro evolution", but large dinosaurs cannot become birds and cats, dogs, or hippos are not transitioning to or from anything, except for cats, dogs, and hippos, NOT whales.

Evolutionaries cannot even decide between themselves what details to BELIEVE in, and have only been able to get this far with clever word games, and have created terms that there is no consensus on, leaving some to claim Speciation & MacroEvolution are both different, and others say its the same thing. There was even an attempt at mental gymnastics to refute Irreducible Complexity, which was weak and insufficient and logically absurd.

www.youtube.com...

When I visited the HK's island Lantau one day I went to swim in sea. I have been on a rocky beach. The rocks were carved by water but on some rocks you could perceive something like animals footprints. On one of the rocks I noticed a footprint looked like the footprint of a giant bird. I took a photo of it and I am presenting it on the photo on the left side. On the photo on the right side for comparison I am presenting footprints of contemporary birds. Gerrie McCall in his book "Dinosaurs"described some of these animals as digitigrade, it means animals whose stand or walk on their digits or toes like birds or cats. So the footprint on the left photo could be left by a dinosaur. I have found a footprint looked like a human's footprint also. I took photo of the footprint with my shoe for comparison. A size of the footprint and mu shoe is similar. The footprint was tapered in a heel direction. It looks like a trace of a shoe on the wedge, like buskin or wedge boot. In ancient time buskins were used by actors in Greece and also by hunters and soldiers in Ancient Greek, Etruscan, and Roman societies. There were used in China also. In the old days maybe similar kind of shoes with thick soles was used in an area where there were shallow mud or water for feet protection. So that time this kind of shoes could have the most practical character not like today - mainly decorative. If the rocks with footprints are in similar age it could point on that, that people and dinosaurs walked on HK's swamps in ancient time and met each other. The photos you can find on my blog othervariant.weebly.com...

Climax, I see where you're coming from completely.

Even since I was young, I've always questioned the established norms of society. Evolution was no exception. Why should it be an exception? Just because I may be ostracized if I don't go along? I don't give the slightest damn, to be perfectly honest. I don't succumb well to peer pressure; to hell with others opinions of me.

You hardcore evolutionists are all the same. All you do is criticize and demean others that don't agree with your view of the origin of life on this planet. Nearly all of you started off with telling Climax that you feel sorry for his kids, and you tried your very best to provide information with as much smugness as possible.

Don't you guys see that you're no different than a hardcore creationist? You may THINK you are, but you really aren't. Two sides of the same coin. What bugs me is not that, necessarily; it's that you refuse to see it.

You sit in school/college/university, you read and study from their textbooks, and then you continue to propagate a belief you, yourself, have very little if any evidence for.

Christians sit in church, read and study from the Bible, and then they continue to propagate a belief they, themselves, have very little evidence for.

You see? You're practically interchangeable. We just have to switch around which beliefs you hold.

The fact of the matter is, none of you can provide any real evidence. You rely on the studies of others. You harp on about discoveries WE have made, and yet you've never discovered a damn thing. The researchers, the scientists, the "tologists"; THEY did the discovering. And even then, they are not above reproach.

Oh and Alice, showing pictures of transitions don't count as evidence. Maybe it does to you, but I think we need more than some drawings.

I wont even start on that Google link someone else posted of all of those fossil pics. There were many pics in that list that went against your ideas. And again, pictures prove absolutely nothing.

None of you even commented on the fact scientists have faked discoveries before. But I guess that is easier to do than just confronting them.

You know, I always thought being open minded was about questioning EVERYTHING. Yet, here "we" are, believing in evolution wholeheartedly. Without a single doubt in "our" minds. There must be a reason it's pushed so hard, and don't tell me because it's the truth. It isn't. Truth isn't really that hard to find if you really want it. Evolution, however, remains elusive.

Honestly, evolution is not what really bugs me. I don't care what one believes really. What bothers me, is that many who believe it push it as fact, as if it is unquestionable. And then these people proceed to marginalize those that don't agree to the point where those that question it are made to seem subhuman. People always say science changes, yet why is it that the theory of the origin of life NEVER changes since the inception of this false theory?

Ask anyone what evolution IS and you get different answers from everybody. What evolution IS isn't set in stone, it is ever changing; and that is quite worrisome.

It is my conclusion upon much study that evolution is pure nonsense. And no, a belief in any God is not what makes me come to that conclusion.

Also, keep in mind that drawings of animals will not sway anyone but those that already believe in the nonsense.