[VadeRetro]

Did you read the Babinski link or not?

There's a lot more material on the web page. Reading it before replying would have been a good idea.

What are you even trying to say in 2039?

Remember how we got here? I mentioned that the designer not only filled the sea with fish but then used mammal parts to make whales, but he left a trail of funny fossils that seems to show land animals gradually losing their legs and becoming sea creatures.

You denied that any such thing exists at all. Was that a lie? We're past the point whether such a thing exists. We're now discussing whether you can get each species thrown out on a technicality. Pakicetus -- "They changed their story!" Ambulocetus -- "Crucially, the all-important pelvic girdle was not found (see diagram, right)." I refuted this in my previous post. So here's you back again with the same troll for suckers. Does me no good to anticipate, does it? You're just going to reach in your little box of AiG tracts and pull out number 11 anyway.

Here's the Ambulocetus a little bigger. Most people can see the pelvic bones. Maybe you can get Dr. Sarfati's attention.

[DittoJed2]

Yes, I read the link- and I read it before replying.

What I was saying in 2309 is that you inferred that creationists are deliberately using old sources to deceive the masses about supposed whale evolution. If you look at the link I gave you, two of the four sources directly address articles from 2001. The article also directly addresses the skeleton bone find.

Second, did you read the link I posted earlier from Job? The Creator created what he created and bone-headed scientists want to convince the world that it shows what "SEEMS TO BE" animals losing their legs and becoming fish. Note, the seems to be. It is an interpretation of the evidence. It is not proof. What is a lie is to say that it is proof. It is not. It is the hopeful thinking of desperate scientists who for 140+ years have been searching the fossil record to prove that we happened by chance- to no avail.