So you knew perfectly well that Pakicetus is real example of a transitional and that the reasons you gave for laughing at it were invalid.

Off topic. This is not a debate thread. Please do not reply to this message

Here's another fact for you to chew on. Biologists had already worked out that whales were descended from ungulates BEFORE Pakicetus was found. Molecular biologists had already worked out that whales were descended from artiodactyls - and that was confirmed by the fossil evidence.Pakicetus has an ear structure ONLY found in cetaceans. It's teeth are similar to those of fossil whales (and teeth are pretty distinctive among the mammals). And that's just the example features listed on the website you referred to.So the evidence isn't being overstated. Because of the crucila fact that the whale-like features are showing up in the right time in the right group of mammals to be the ancestors of modern whales.Te fact is that you were laughing at the idea that Pakicetus was a whale ancestor BECAUSE IT HAD THE FEATURES EXPECTED OF A WHALE ANCESTOR> That's not a rational objection - and if you knew it wasnt' valid as your earlier post suggested it isn't even honest.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-01-2005 04:55 PM

http://EvC Forum: Hurricane Katrina -->EvC Forum: Hurricane KatrinaOmnivorous directed some (not undeserved) abuse against Faith. And, by my reading, asked to be banned.This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-05-2005 07:40 AM

quote:

---

But what does it matter? If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell? Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her! If she does not, then you can all say "told you so."

---

THe problem is that she DOESN'T succeed and resorts to double standards and dishonesty.She claims that she rejects standard geological explanatiosn because they don't make sense, but has no problems proposing "explanations" that are pure raving insanity.Contrary evidence must NOT be considered allegedly because it is "begging the question"Cosnidering other explanations for evidence is also ruled out on the same false grounds.IF her methods are so good then why does she need to rely on blatant double-standards and obvious lies to shut down any reasonable examination ?Faith can appear to be reasonable at times and that is a good reason to produce scientific evidence to refute her. If only to expose the fact that she ISN'T reasonable. But you have to recognise that she doesn;t stop at the point where her ideas are shown up as unreasonable - she keeps on going.T