Pakicetus was better adapted to land than a modern otter. In fact, aside from something or other about its earbones, it shows almost no aquatic modifications at all. For all that, it's the starting point for the series that follows it because of similarities of skull, teeth, ankle bones, etc.
Your chronic naysayer at Creation Safaris has the hobby of researching every possible excuse to discard as much of mainstream geology, biology, and even astronomy as possible. In his frantic haste to do so, he allows himself great license.
He couldn't find much on Rhodocetus, evidently. In alleging the poverty of the whale series, he forgets to mention Ambulocetus, the alligator-like one before Rhodocetus, and various later whales--Basilosaurus and Dorudon come to my aging mind--which are fully obligate ocean swimmers whose hind legs slowly disappear. Isn't it a cheat to allege that a fossil series is skimpy and then "forget" more than half its contents?
The guy casts his aspersions so recklessly that it's not clear if he's lying or he simply didn't bother to check first. The quality of his work has been dissected for you before. It does not hold up to serious scrutiny. The way you keep trotting him out as if he were Albert Einstein doesn't look good, either.
Might as well mention that in this fossil series you can also see the land-mammal nostrils creep from the end of the muzzle up the skull to form the cetacean blowhole atop the head.