Hey Al....
I was suprised that you are still posting to me. In post #329 you posted...
'You are delusional. Once again, I have wasted my efforts in appealing to someone's conscience. "
And in post # 258 you posted....
"You are so far removed from understanding basic logic that I don't see any point in explaining it again."
So I have to ask myself...If you believe me to be delusional, and lacking the basic understanding of logic (crazy)...Why are you trying to convince me of anything? Like I posted to someone else, which is crazier? The crazy man holding to his beliefs, or the person trying to convince a crazy man he's crazy?
Of course, I know I'm not crazy, but you think I am. I believe you are pursueing this because the Holy Spirit of God is convicting your heart of something, and you feel that by trashing me, the convicting feeling will go away. Well, I'll give you your chance.
First, your "grass" question came about in post # 152 in response to this...
"A scientific fact requires observation. Like I said in another post, you can't test or observe non-life creating life, transitional forms, or primitive organisms, to name a few."
You posted....
"Transitional forms have been observed; speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in nature. If you think speciation has not occurred, then answer this simple question: why can't domestic wheat inter-breed with emmer grass? If you don't understand the question, you are not ready to refute anything about transitional forms."
My statement about transitional forms comes from a pro-evolution book called "Denying Evolution" by Massimo Pigliucci. If you want to fight him about transitional forms, be my guest.
I find it interesting that you have made yourself the judge and jury on my ability to enter into the discussion of transitional forms. You post some "grass" question, declare if I don't have the answer to your question of "specification" then I'm not qualified to dispute whale walking tales. (Specification is a word you used, not me, and I suspect a side argument on it's scientific definition. I'll leave that alone, though.)
Ok, here's my answer to your "grass" question.....I don't know. I could look it up, but I'm not interested. I did look up some stuff on the whale walking problems. You can access it
Here . I'm sure you have answers to all those problems too.
Here's my bottom line with you...Someday you'll stand before God, and answer to Him for your life. Is your reason for not having faith in His son going to be along the lines of, "I couldn't believe in your Bible because science had shown me that domestic wheat can't interbreed with emmer grass."?
Sincerely
PMFJI, but I ignored my better judgment and followed
your link. It's a grab bag of reasons why whales can't have evolved from land-based artiodactyls. It ignores the evidence for this having happened and concentrates on barriers real and imagined, mostly the latter.
Here's the problem. We have long had a series of whales called Archaeocetes with primitive features unknown or atavistic on modern whales. Legs and pelvises visibly shrinking over time. Nostrils visibly rising on the head over time to become the modern blowhole. But these were all still fully marine animals.
The 80s and 90s have further fleshed out the picture. We have a fully terrestrial land artiodactyl, Pakicetus. We have an obvious but later near-relative (similar head) Ambulocetus, about as aquatic as a crocodile. We have a later near-relative Rhodocetus about as aquatic as a pinniped (seal, walrus). Still has the head similarities and still has an artiodactyl ankle bone, the astralagus. The series has fleshed out in other places as well.
And what your link refers to only elliptically in the most negative light it can manufacture is that whales are molecularly speaking even-toed ungulates. All it can do is find someone somewhere expressing incredulity at how unrelated traditional taxonomy has made cows and whales, given the molecular relatedness.
We have the clear forensic trail in the fossil record and molecular biology. All creationists can do is squirm and quote-mine. This is weaker than weak. Given clear and positive evidence that a thing has happened, evidence which makes no sense at all if the thing didn't happen, it DOESN'T MATTER if we don't know every detail down to the molecule of how it happened. It does no good to invent silly excuses why it was supposedly impossible.
The exact parallel happens in discussions of dinosaurs becoming birds. Someone will post something along the lines of "A theropod claw can't become a wing because the in-between thing is not a wing and not a claw and no good as anything."
To which I post a picture.
That is the forelimb of what creationists, shrieking in denial, call "A bird! Just a bird! Not a transitional!"
And to deal with another point of yours, said pictures never convinces the nutcase who made the point being answered of anything. Never. After all, he's nuts.
But I can hear the lurkers belly-laughing.