Evolution vs Rastafari: Why you have to go with Rastafari

Pakicetus?! The fossil evidence of this creature consisted of Only fragments of the skull and jaw.
Yet again demonstrating the great lengths people who embrace evolutionism go to to justify their religious beliefs. Just as Jehovah’s Witness, mormons, islamists etc. do the same thing.

Just as my link above demonstrates how evolutionites jump to conclusions about ‘vestigal’ whale leg bones, only to observe and understand now that they are used for reproductive reasons!

Again, Evolution has no legs to stand on.😔 just like so many other false religions/false teachings.
I agree with Gungasnake on this.

And yet, no amount of logic, no amount of truth can ‘persuade’ ppl so heavily deceived. Why?
I gotta say it is because of the hardness of Humankind’s heart.

Womehow, you, like gung, seem to dwell on information from the 1940's. When the first fossils of the dawn cetaceans, that may have been a fact, (It seems like your creationist sources like to dwell on erly findings and then they ignore wht gone on in the following 70+ years. Fossils of the 5 species and several more subspecies of pakicetus qnd many more ambulocetus and Rhodocetus and Durodon have been discovered by workers in the entire Asian subcontinent where Paleogene sediments were deposited. Fairly complete fossil skeletons have been found and are available for view on the web.
Youre just misinformed or you are being misinformed.

I love it when Creationists try to sound like they are in possessions of truth when actually, they all seem to gravitate to what their "experts" say in unchecked print.

I looked into recent work by ICR and see they are conferring graduate degrees in "Creation SCience " and "Flood Geology". All of these schools that offer these degrees , either offer them as degrees from a divinity school (thus sliding beneath the door of accreditation), OR, like ICR, their entire program is unaccredited . Geologists are licensed (like engineers) in most states and the requirements for even taking the tests for licensing are a degree from an accredited university or college and several years of supervised work (either applied or research), not some certificate from a Bible school that is professing to be in possession of some kind of inerrant crap from the Bible (and calling it science). Youre being played and dont seem to know it.Try to keep an open mind an check these "Facts" for yourself . You seem to just download stuff from ICR and boldly present present it as facts (yet you are unaware , or ignore, the real news)

Heres a mount of a Pakicetus fossil from deltaic deposits along an ancient estuary in Pakistan. According to fossil recovery data (An AGI service), several dozen relatively complete fossils have been found in the lat 50 years or so. They recognize 5 different fossil species and 4 genera of ancient (paleogene) artiodctyls that ultimately became the ancestors of whales .

How does the saying go? ‘Fossils are fickle, they will sing any song you want them to sing’
Again, it seems Evolutionites Will go great lengths...Just as so many other people who embrace false religions/teachings.

Pakicetus was a land animal:
http://evolutiondismantled.com/pakicetus

http://creation.mobi/not-at-all-like-a-whale

Well brother, using my discernment, it seems that you are not seeking the truth, willing to see the truth, and definitely not willing to embrace the truth.... just as so many other people of false religions and teachings, stuck in there Comfort. Course they say otherwise.

One thing is for sure, this world is full of false teachings because not everyone can be right, And possess the truth,someone has to be wrong.... which means millions of people 😔

interesting what happens when you google that group of letters

it leads back to a2k and the gsnake

hmmmm

🤔

USing your song analogy, musicologists can follow development of music among emerging social groups and, by doing so, can provide information about population "flow" in remote areas. Also, lets take someone like ELvis, musicologists can detect the similarities in his music throughout hiw career.

FOSSILS are usually not viewed as evidence of a single creature, the evidence that suggested the evolutionary relationship that existed among certain artiodactyls (even toes ungulates like deer ) and the eo cetaceans had been preserved in several structural features involving skull modifications, unique means by which ossicals are deposited (Bone deposition patterns of this type are UNIQUE only to cetaceans and hippos).

Genomics jumps in with the things that pseudogenes and "sonic Hedgehog" shows us an, (If were paying attention) we can see that some of the [ some pseudogenes can still be turned on allowing scientists see what earlier features had been in a specific clade.-like chicken teeth]

The development and preservation of at least 10 different fossil species of proto-whales and eocetaceans , each with derivative features through time can be seen by studying a collection of cetacean fossils. BUT, one has first to look and observe for oneself. When your mind is closed by virtue of your worldview, its unfortunate and Im quite convinced that logic and evidence cant make it into your skull.

The geology of the changing environmenthelped allso. It made itevident through the disappearance of the mid latitude circulation, the rise of estuaries and shallow embayments along the Asian subcontinent as Tethy sea began approaching the present day configuration. These estuaries made a suitable terrestrial and emerging embayment "Cradles" for severl clades of animals that exist today. The cetacean fossils , starting as a fairly local Darwinian event, became more and more transoceanic by the time balleen whales and toothed whales separated (qs well as other groups of sea dwelling mammals). By the Oligocene and Miocene, whale species were pretty much taking oceanic streamlined shapes.

You kinda remind me of that guy whose trying to show that the erth is flat and hes gonna get into a balloon to take pictures. Sometimes brick wall and heads are meant to keep pounding.

Your "same data different view" is hokum because you seem to want to reduce all of your inspections to one species at a time and ignore the entire panoply of zoology , genetics, geology, paleontology etc etc. Id ask you some rather simple questions but I feel youd just ignore em like gunga would do.

whats rather amusing is the bitter wars of ideas going on between the many colors of "Creationism".
1.
The "young earth Creationists" believe in the inerrancy of the Christian Bible as it discusses the beginnings of life (They never enter any detailed discussions or anything about how all these species lived and existed except obliquely, like references to a "behemoth" or that Noah's boat held everything "after its kind" and "there were beasts"

2.
Old Earth Creationists, pretty much accept what science has found (including evolution for mot parts)except that its Deity directed and that life is "anagenesis" in action (theistic evolution)

3.
Intelligent Deign (modern version)-See above except it doesnt dre to mention that theres a god in the mix, just some universal intelligence

Each of these groups stands its grounds against its sister religions so I feel like we re often dealing with the Islamic world where sects are warring with other sects of islam.

The YEC's are the ones I find most ridiculous because they , from the starting gate, seem to be in denial of the very rules of original Creationist thought .

About ‘old earth creationists’...

I think it is terribly sad that even the ppl part of the true church have been deceived into the lie of millions and billions of years
Just as ppl can be lead astray into immmoral lifestyles, being lead astray into believing some of the popular issues of our time are ‘good’

One thing I have learned in life is that unless God reveals to mankind the truth pertaining to the creation/evolution subject, or how to live (moral truths), or why there is pain suffering and death, mans sinful human nature, his character, the why we are here and the where to after death we would be eternally lost!

The last verse in the book of Judges reads ‘...and there was no king in Israel in those days, and every man did what was right in his own eyes’
(Ppl did not know their left hand from their right hand)

God is to be our king and dictate right from wrong. Hence why evolutionism, Islam, Mormonism and other false teachings, (just as immoral behaviour ) are thriving now more than ever:(

When god goes, anything goes...anarchy reigns!

well, you certainly have a right to worship with that worldview as your guide. You just have NO RIGHT to try to pass it off as science within public institutions.

Thats the LAW in the US.

Ever since the USSC has reminded these churches about what constitutes religion and what is a secular society, the war among your various Creationist sects has gotten more bitter and the spin off has resulted in "Teaching the Controversy" as the only wy that these sects can try to hold on to some credibility among the citizenry.
I dont mind that, the only thing I mind is when you all use limited knowledge to try to make up "Alternative facts" when things like Radiological dating and paleontology and genomic are CORRECT. errors always happen, but they are quickly found and corrected.
SO FAR, nothing really significant has affected the Darwinian world. Facts are still facts.

You can believe in Mormonism, Catholicism, evolutionism or whatever Religion/false teaching you are caught up in, but it is wrong st the end of the day, sorry brother, it is what it is.
There can be many false teachings (nearly countless) but only one truth.

Here is one last thing with dating techniques, and how ALL techniques rely on assumptions to yield millions and billions of years. EVERY dating technique relies on assumptions, therefore every dating technique is unreliable.
I can see why u still cling to believing such techniques are reliable though:( your religion/faith in evolutionism depends on it.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

Remember AIG starts with a Biblical Inerrancy assumption so anything that challenges your belief must be wrong. Science aint like that.

Weve gone through tens of modifications for radiometric dating, everything from siezing a LAMBDA function unique to the isotopes, the understanding of what "chrons" are.

Radiometric dating is repeatable, experimentally derived, and its strong;y verifiable by many many different "overlapping" methodologies (we can do non radiometric dating for relative qnd exact dating)
My suggestions are that you really read the developments and the methodology of radiometric dating before you try to offer what you think is correct or not.(I find it kind of lqughable that you are accepting "Answers in Genesis" a huckster site , and you dont ahve any idea what all the interrelationships among isotopic half lives have provided us in many of our tools and discoveries.
Error in isotope dating is about 0.2% to 1% of presented data.
A.P. Dickin's bookRadioactive isotope Geology (1995) , is still a great text and its approachable and not full of all those "certainties" that AIG presumes are real.

If you doubt rad decay analyses (and all the isotope variations available), there are many other techniques such as
alpha track dating
Cosmogenic exposure dating
Thermoluminescence
Optically STimulated Thermo
Spin resonance
relict geomagnetics

Youre playing in my court and Im a bit aghast that you folks dont EVER question from where all these other methods come from and how they were verified an how well they repeat etc etc. You just BUY into AIG because its Biblically supported. Im sorry, thats just not good enough. Many scientists had tried to underpin SCripture with findings and they were soon to discover that the erth is REALLY REALLY OLD. And we dont have any evidence of mammoth fossils from the Carboniferous or the Cambrian . All that says is that the fossils ARE NOT arranged by density but by ascending age strata.

There was an ENglish comedian who took the Creation"Science" crap apart in a skit where he reads Genesis and comments on it. Funny stuff.
One of Dawkins/Ham discussions was on Youtube and the question was asked of Dawkins
"How can you believe all this evolution stuff"??

"Cause it works" he replied. "Nothing that Creationists presewnt is a fact or can be evidenced "

Unless youve forgotten, you alredy brought up Snelling earlier. His presentation of isotope dating "Assumptions" are quite flawed , Im not gonna spend time discussing it because you are apparently amazed at anything that looks like a partial derivative (even if its incomplete and directed incorrectly)

Yes, your court of religious faith where zero probability chance of life from non-life is rational/logical. And that land mammals crawled into the ocean and morphed into whales because your religious leader ‘Dawkins’ says so etc.

I hope you one day seek the truth:) it is really quite obvious and visible for everyone to see👍

And yes, you have a right to believe in evolutionism, or that the world is flat, but should have no right to pass it off as scientific, or logical/rational, and as the truth.

You dont understand ,we dont have to "believe" in things when they are facts that are evidence based. Unfortunately your worldview is fact-free. Did you ever wonder why modern Creationist "thinking" has no evidence or facts in its support? It is only based upon trying to deny science.

You are more akin to those who "believe "in a flat earth. Continental drift is the latest demonstration that we live on the geoid(continentl drift paths are solved using SPHERICAL GEOMETRY) and not a ritz cracker and ALSO helps us see the development via time and distance (evolution if you will) of species that are "torn from each others neighborhood" as the continents are torn apart. Jever notice the differences between monkeyss in the old world v the new world?
I wonder how they did that?
Think about all the different species separated by oceans and millions of years. Exact locations are solved by relict geomagnetism.

If you hve ANY facts or evidence , lets see it? Those AIG clips are nothing but poor attempts at belittling common sense nd science.

You keep going an believing in "Noah's Flood, or a "6000 year old earth (when we have civilizations that must be 5 times older than your earth).

Yes, I could spin that and say You don’t understand, and that we don’t have to believe in things when they are facts that are evidence based. Unfortunately your Worldview is fact free. Did you ever wonder why modern evolutionist thinking has no evidence or facts in it support? Its only based upon trying to deny science.

As an example, using dating techniques as factual and reliable although they are loaded with assumptions which are faulty. Only yielding millions and billions of years because of this.
Civilizations older than 6000 years old, how do you know? By using dating techniques loaded with assumptions which dictate any conclusion you would like. Yep.

It. Is. That. Simple.

Not only radioisotopes , like argon/argon dating on ash deposits, weve used things like varve deposits, overlapping tree rings, thermoluminescence or spin resonance in bone , obsidian, clam and other shells used as food and stable isotope analyses (like flourine dating on bone).
by"flipping my observations about" you merely demonstrate your own ignorance of science.

C14 also is used as a cross check of other dating techniques as a means of "many methods, one answer"

Youve certainly compartmentalized anything doing with scienctific methods eh?

Science certainly has areas of unrevealed secrets where weve made mistakes in our analyses. Those times seem to be getting fewer and fewer as evidence about evolutions methods and lifes pathways of information storage and dissemination reveal themselves. As wrong as we may be, Im glad that noone that I call colleague sticks his or her head in the sand to deny things as strongly as Creationists do.
ll that Creationist lleaders require of their flocks is complete ignorance of the laws of the natural world and the evidence weve piled up while working them out.

But again, because ALL dating techniques have faulty assumptions at play, why rely on any of them?

Why even bother posting such techniques to try and prove a point?
Radiometric dating, tree rings, radiocarbon dating etc all have their assumptions at play too of course...

Without posting s link, everyone should be able to grasp something as simple as tree rings can produce more than one ring per year...sometimes they do several rings per year....google it, you’ll see.

Sure if ppl (usually evolutionists) *Assume* only one tree ring per year you get an Older age than what the tree really is in reality.....right?

The same thing happens with any dating technique. Allllll these ‘old earth’ results are due to making assumptions and relying on them! Science, real science should never rely on sssumptions to conclude something, and make a ‘true’ statement, or call it ‘fact’ when the ‘fact’ is heavily dependent upon faulty assumptions! This kind of thinking would never hold up in the court of law right?
This is why your arguments, or claims of ‘fact’ (which I know contain major assumptions) I do not consider, and no one should of course.

Are you flat out ignoring the fact EVERY technique is unreliable because of such assumptions, or have you never been taught these assumptions exist? (Have u genuinely been lead astray/deceived?)🤔

Most ppl I speak with are stunned when they learn how full of assumptions dating techniques really are.

I have hope in you sir:) see the light!