Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-10-2002, 12:18 PM

Since some threads have jumped around a bit, I am not sure where to post this link, but seeing as some of you have been good at details on these links, maybe one of you could explain which is thr right illustration of this creature, the one published in Nature indicating it was a land-based creature, and National Geographic's whale illustration. Is it really a walking whale, or just another land animal as Nature had it depicted. I can tell you right now, I don't trust National Geographic.

<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp</a>

Daggah · 03-10-2002, 12:22 PM

Ironic...you don't trust esteemed publications like National Geographic and you post links to known dishonest organizations like TrueOrigins, ICR, and AiG...what's next, are you going to link to Hovind's arguments, troll?

randman · 03-10-2002, 01:17 PM

So you can't answer.
Thought so. Next.

Daggah · 03-10-2002, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
<strong>So you can't answer.
Thought so. Next.</strong>

Oh, I don't think so bud. You haven't answered my claims about other evidence for evolution in at least three threads now. So if you're going to start on this tack, perhaps you should check to make sure you're not throwing your stones from a glass house!

MrDarwin · 03-10-2002, 04:18 PM

Randman, for the life of me I can't figure out this obsession of yours with National Geographic. If you're going to complain that NG oversimplifies science, or even gets it wrong sometimes, nobody is going to argue with you! It's simply not a scientific publication, and it's not where most of us get our scientific information. (If it's where you're getting your scientific information, I think I'm beginning to understand what your problem is.)

MrDarwin · 03-10-2002, 04:23 PM

BTW most intelligent readers do realize that when artists illustrate extinct animals, it is a combination of informed guesswork and artistic license--getting two different interpretations of the same set of bones, by two different artists, is really not that surprising, or unusual.

But I'm curious--does the Nature article really indicate that it was "just another land animal?" Does the Nature paper refer to it as a whale, walking or otherwise, or did National Geographic invent that out of thin air? I haven't seen the paper, so perhaps you can explain it to me.

Troll Hunter · 03-10-2002, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[QB] I can tell you right now, I don't trust National Geographic.

And I don't trust a thing written by <a href="http://www.harunyahya.com/" target="_blank">Harun Yahya. </a> But I guess we have different standards for evaluatin' our sources.

And now for a word from our sponsors ...

phlebas · 03-10-2002, 07:17 PM

randman,

Until you either answer the pending responses waiting for you in other threads, or shout "uncle," any new threads you start in this forum will be moved to Rants, Raves, and Preaching.

Everyone here is happy to interact with those who disagree or who come here wanting to ask questions. No one here is interested in a belligerent troll who doesn't understand common rules of conduct.

Come back when you can handle it.

03-10-2002, 12:18 PM	#1
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Pakicetus inachus Since some threads have jumped around a bit, I am not sure where to post this link, but seeing as some of you have been good at details on these links, maybe one of you could explain which is thr right illustration of this creature, the one published in Nature indicating it was a land-based creature, and National Geographic's whale illustration. Is it really a walking whale, or just another land animal as Nature had it depicted. I can tell you right now, I don't trust National Geographic. <a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2002, 12:22 PM	#2
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Ironic...you don't trust esteemed publications like National Geographic and you post links to known dishonest organizations like TrueOrigins, ICR, and AiG...what's next, are you going to link to Hovind's arguments, troll?

03-10-2002, 01:17 PM	#3
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	So you can't answer. Thought so. Next.

03-10-2002, 04:18 PM	#5
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Randman, for the life of me I can't figure out this obsession of yours with National Geographic. If you're going to complain that NG oversimplifies science, or even gets it wrong sometimes, nobody is going to argue with you! It's simply not a scientific publication, and it's not where most of us get our scientific information. (If it's where you're getting your scientific information, I think I'm beginning to understand what your problem is.)

03-10-2002, 04:23 PM	#6
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	BTW most intelligent readers do realize that when artists illustrate extinct animals, it is a combination of informed guesswork and artistic license--getting two different interpretations of the same set of bones, by two different artists, is really not that surprising, or unusual. But I'm curious--does the Nature article really indicate that it was "just another land animal?" Does the Nature paper refer to it as a whale, walking or otherwise, or did National Geographic invent that out of thin air? I haven't seen the paper, so perhaps you can explain it to me.

03-10-2002, 07:17 PM	#8
phlebas Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Metropolis Posts: 916	randman, Until you either answer the pending responses waiting for you in other threads, or shout "uncle," any new threads you start in this forum will be moved to Rants, Raves, and Preaching. Everyone here is happy to interact with those who disagree or who come here wanting to ask questions. No one here is interested in a belligerent troll who doesn't understand common rules of conduct. Come back when you can handle it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.