Replies

Of all the creation groups I've investigated, I have the most respect for and agreement with Morris' group, Institute for Creation Research.

Co-starring Duane Gish. Gish and Morris have combined to write some of the most disingenuous and downright silly stuff I've ever seen linked here. Here's on the ICR site even today is an article written by Gish from 1994 citing evolutionist Colbert in 1953 as saying that whale origins are simply a mystery:

Speaking of whales, Colbert said, "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone." [3]

That looks awful, considering that Gish is even there waving away the new legged cetacean transitionals Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. Colbert's observation has been outdated for years even by 1994. It looks worse when he dismisses the "new" transitionals for having legs and thus not being whales. (But if they looked the same as modern whales they wouldn't be transitionals! Catch-22.)

When some of the ICR staff looked at the picture with the knowledge that Thewissen and fellow workers called this creature a whale, they laughed. Evolutionists may claim that this was because of ignorance of subtle distinctions of anatomy; on the other hand, associating the word "whale" with a creature with large and powerful front and hind legs does seem a bit ludicrous to skeptics.

It's all like that. Charlatans trolling for suckers.

1953

1955. Typo.

OH MY! The whole 1953 Gish whale thang was proved wrong?? I guess I'll become an evolutionist now because I'm sure none of their half-baked ideas have been wrong.

"It's all like that."

"All" is one of those words that my dad used to warn me to be careful of because it has a tendency to ricochet. You've read "all" of ICR's stuff?

When some of the ICR staff looked at the picture with the knowledge that Thewissen and fellow workers called this creature a whale, they laughed. Evolutionists may claim that this was because of ignorance of subtle distinctions of anatomy; on the other hand, associating the word "whale" with a creature with large and powerful front and hind legs does seem a bit ludicrous to skeptics.-Gish-

It's all like that. Charlatans trolling for suckers.

It's all like that with you, insult the messenger. All that your insult proves is that you have no legitimate response to it. It is funny that paleontologists can ignore such an obvious problem when calling something the ancestor of another species. They also ignore all the bodily changes needed to make a species able to live all the time in water. The bones do not tell that story either.