Linda Lou - No one is asking you to put faith in god, or use that as your reasoning to believe anything, we are asking you to go the other direction ...just to look at the evidence. I will not talk about god or the bible, just the evidence (I suggest others do the same to keep all arguments admissable) The amalgam example is very useful, you have researched it and found what you believe to be the truth, you are no longer being close minded by sticking with that. That was the context of that example. Also, It doesn't hold much weight telling someone that the research they have done has not been thorough or unbiased, if you have not done it yourself. If you want to refute or disprove or debate the evidence i bring, than you must atleast be able to hold your own in that arena. Shouting from the sidelines of a game you haven't played in holds little weight. I still find your posts well thought out and look forward to your reply.

Kriminal,
This is a direct rebuttle to your original post, and its all (mostly) my words. It doesn't involve any other research, just questioning your reasonings on things, and how they stand as "proof" of anything. Suggestion or conclusion does not substantiate proof. I put it in iatalics so others can skip it if they like.


2. Morphological evidence: One example is that the inner ears of these fossils are shaped in intermediate forms similar to modern whales and modern artiodactyls: this is because the ears had to develop to be suitable for an aquatic environment.
The shape of the feet of these fossils is also uniquely similar to whales and artiodactyls.

Even today there are infinite species that display similarities to each other. This does not however dictate that they evolved from each other. It is speculation . No more "concrete" than looking at two paintings and speculating if they were made by the same artist. A guess doesn't constitute science. The hypothesis must be proved and to date, we have yet to prove that anything morphs into another species.

3. Molecular Biological Evidence: When their genes are studied, whale genes are more similar to those of ungulates than any other mammals.

again, not proof that they created different species, speculation.

4. Vestigial Evidence: Vestigial pelvic bones, femora, tibiae, are found in modern whales. The fossil record shows a gradual diminishing of these bones. Whales also have vestigial olfactory nerves (needed for smell normally). Also, vestigial muscles for moving ears.

Gill slits are an example of what evolutionists call vestigial organs. The idea is that sometime in the distant past these organs had a purpose, but they are no longer useful. Vestigial organs imply evolution. If man were created, there would be no reason for them. Evolutionists found 180 vestigial organs, most of which were muscles. Only six are still around. The rest are now known to be useful or even essential.

From 180 down to six is a pretty good drop in vestigial organs. Given a few more years, it is reasonable to think we might find functions for the rest of them too. Naturalists no longer stress vestigial organs. They have proved to be an embarrassment.



5. Embryological Evidence: The whale embryo retains primordial features that are abandoned later on: body hair, hind limb buds, ear pinnae, olfactory lobes of the brain (again, for smelling. These don't exist in adults). Embryos of baleen whales develop teeth, but these disappear before birth.

In 1868 Ernst Haeckel, an enthusiastic supporter of evolution, formulated his "fundamental biogenetic law." It states that an embryo goes through stages during which it resembles its ancestry. At one point, the human embryo has a feature resembling fish gills, so we must have had fish in our ancestry, concluded Haeckel.
According to Haeckel, everything in the animal kingdom descended from a gastrula, which is an early stage in most animals embryonic development. He faked evidence to support his claim. Haeckel was caught and admitted that some of his embryonic drawings were forgeries.
Notwithstanding, the gill slit misconception caught on and is still cited as evidence that humans evolved from fish. Although the pouches do superficially resemble fish gills, they have nothing to do with breathing. They are the early states of the lower jaw, ear, and neck including the thyroid and parathyroid glands. It's a feature of embryonic function, not evolution.
What this embryonic claim really proved was just how eager nineteenth century evolutionists were to use any argument, however specious, to further their cause.


6. Geochemical Evidence: Whales had to move from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water. Fresh and salt water each have different isotopic ratios of oxygen, which is recorded in whale skeletons (namely, teeth). Earlier whale fossils have low ratios of heavy oxygen, while later whale fossils have more (mainly drinking salt water).

This is following the assumption that they came from one another. If you wanted to actually prove this, it would have to be done as a standalone theory. Adaptations within species is different than changing species.

7. Paleoenvironmental Evidence: This is where we look at the other things these whale fossils were associated with. We predict that since earlier whales like Sinonyx were land mammals, we'd find these fossils among other terrestrial animals. Pakicetus was more adapted for water so we'd expect to see their fossils associated with aquatic critters, as well as unique sediment formations of low-lying wet terrestrial environments. Sure enough, this is the case.

This is baffling. Your saying that the fact that a land mammal's remains were found on land and an aquatic animals remains were found near water proves that they evolved into each other?


8. Paleobiogeographic evidence: Land whales wouldn't have the mobility of aquatic whales, so we'd expect to find their fossils in a much more restricted geographic region. Sure enough, Sinonyx is found primarily in central Asia. Pakicetus is found only in Afghanistan.

Again, this is no more proof of evolution than creation.

9. Chronological Evidence: Since evolution is essentially forced by changing environments or invited by new opportunities, we should be able to detect some sensible reason as to why whales developed to move into the seas. During the early Cenozoic, whales had to fill in niches left over with the extinction of the dinosaurs. Large mesozoic reptile predators were gone, so mammals were free to conquer the seas. Whale fossils are consistently found in this restricted time frame.

Much of the early material on evolution theorized that life came out of the seas...not from land into the sea. This point you are making though does not rule out that a species became the weaker and gave way to extinction and the growth in the population of another, now dominant species. I consistently see evolutionists pointing to "evidence" of evolution, when it can no more be ruled out as intelligent design. How does this prove evolution and disprove creation?


I encourage all of you to read the post in this forum "evolution disproved in 50" I have read another book of this guys and it is quite fascinating. But very briefly, he starts out by saying that Math, unlike science, is not open to interpretation. Numbers don't lie, and on most of his arguments, you would be hard pressed to find someone who would refute the parameters he has set up. It's an interesting read.

To sum up my post, let's get off of all of the superfluous stuff and talk about all this evidence.