kinetekade

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1344.asp

What do you guys think? More nonsense?

And I'm always welcoming more information regarding whale Evolution. If you have any links or articles to add here, be my guest!

keyser_soze

Other than the OBVIOUS fact...that you should avoid AIG like the plague(you can read it, but it's much like reading those tabloids in line at the market...your IQ drops by the second while doing so), I would suggest providing the link to a forum that is dedicated mainly to biology, and specifically oceananic(aquatic) biology, perhaps even a paleontologist...I think whales still have vestigial limbs IIRC. You will get a quick line by line autopsy on the article here, and it will certainly point out where AIG folks are misrepresenting facts(as is common for them..*ahem*(salt domes & flooding)*hack* YEC) *cough*...sorry, got a cold). But in all reality, to get the best analysis of this you need to get all three sides, the rational, the scientific, and the fundies. Compare, and make up your own mind. That is what the internet and the library are for...reading. But, if you are really curious, be prepared to watch the magic tricks that AIG performs...turning data on it's head, making entire streams of logic dissappear! Sleight of hand, and a vacuum of mind!!!!!! All there in that three ring circus! BTW, did you notice...that's not the longest article you've ever seen on a scientific find...it's because it's missing about 3 pages of data. But be patient, a biologist will come along soon here(one of those damn conspirators, trying to hide the fact that the world is only 6000 years old *cough* (lying about deltas and disregaring facts) *cough* damn cold! Anyway, off you go.

keyser_soze

BTW, you will find that in all likelihood, the article was originally some bit article used as filler, and nothing but a theory by some paleontologist or archaeologist somewhere. While to him it was a burp in time, with little probable thought as to it's use(it is freaking pakistan after all), the fundies will twist it into some conspiracy theory about how science is trying to misrepresent the world to these poor people all over the world. Look up science in the dictionary, and see if conspiracy is something you link to it. That's what the creationists will never figure out...just a bunch of regular guys roaming around performing the equivelant of math, except using the physical world. Fundies are definately a strange creature.:banghead:

ps418

Rather than wait for Valentine Pontifex to come and point out the blunders in that article, I'll just give you a link to his article critiquing the AiG article:

A rather complete "incomplete" Ambulocetus whale fossil

keyser_soze

Ouch, ten to one they leave the AIG article up despite it being labotomized! I mean, not everyone is going to ask about it, right. Still, I would love to hear another dissection. But that article does blow it out of the water. Kind of surprised they didn't bother to go and check to see if they had every finished the excavation dig...or left out that they weren't including the other specimens located nearby, that provided more than enough of the skeleton. Wonder why the AIG article would say there were only a couple bones found, when in reality they found almost the whole thing(looks like 90%+ to me). Without investigation, a non critical person might buy that at first glance. Shame shame, that seems kind of fraudulent. Think anybody will have the conscience to rewrite it or accept a rebuttal with the actual specimen?

keyser_soze

Hey, a link to the writer of that pathetic excuse for an article at AIG...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...s/d_batten.asp

Hey, he's a Creationist Agricultural Scientist, who did his thesis on root formation in the mung bean. No wonder he's so good with paleontology!

keyser_soze

All fixed...

I wrote to their technical people(their editors are idiots, so I thought I would save some time) and sent the following:



"Yes, you seem to have a broken link. You have an article located here http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1344.asp

Well, the article seems to be lost, since it should point here..to the article with the data that is NOT fudged.http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/...es/lie030.html"




Basically just told them where a MUCH better article was, so that their writer could edit his offering to fit the facts. DO you think they will appreciate my hard work, and concern for the honesty of their site?

Coragyps

Not just "no," but "oh hell, no!" A virtual beer says they won't even reply to you.

kinetekade

Thanks very much for that link ps418. It saved me from a lot of wasted time and confusion

Yeah... that description seems to fit the AIG pretty well I occasionally browse through Creation sites just to see what they've been up to lately, and to stay current on both sides of the debate. I usually don't visit the AIG in particular, but it was linked from an argument I'm having in another forum.

I know this is completely off the subject, but how would you respond if asked, "Give us evidence [of Evolution]. Our request is simple. In fact, lets cut to the chase. Post your absolute best proofs," by the most stubborn, club-gripping YEC ever to set cursor on the web? Such a simple question... yet I don't know how I should reply!

keyser_soze

I think that they should be obligated to provide the proof of THEIR theory...since they are the one working from the fringe side. They should be trying to provide proof to you! They are the one making extraordinary claims! They must prove that logic, science, and common freaking sense are wrong. I mean, seriously, do you think that the grand canyone was carved out by water in 6000 years? I mean, and that is the smallest evidence of old earth! Oh wait, God must have done it to challenge us! We've got almost 6000 years of just written history! Do we just conclude that we started writing the day the world was created? And drawings are older than that?