The Narrow Path Ministries

Steve, in our recent debate, the crux of your argument seemed to rest on this data point you gave us here, and I quote:

"Real whales... Archaeoceti whales have been found millions of years before Ambulocetus, which means Ambulocetus can't be the ancestor of whales [be]cause it lived too late to do so"

Turns out, according to all the books I have, plus everything online, your statement has no documentation. Please provide me with your sources. I couldn't even find mention of it on all the creationist blogs and google searchers I did.

This is what the books I have tell me:

First, Ambulocetus IS an archaeoceti whale. You may want to read more about archaeoceti at least on Wikipedia if you don't have time to visit the library: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoceti

Second, Ambulocetus is chronologically the 4th oldest whale in the group and the most aquatic of the bunch. We start with:

• Himalayacetu, an animal known only from part of its lower jaw. It is associated with early whales because of its teeth.
  
  Packicetus, a 4 legged land dwelling animal associated with whales by the teeth, ear-bones, and an apparent affinity to water by skeletal features and location of fossils
  
  Kutchicetus - a 4 legged animal with a long snout. Appears to be aquatic but feet were not found.
  
  Ambulocetus - a 4 legged whale with long flipper-like feet as shown at the debate. See the image of the original bones shown in the debate here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 009-0135-2

My sources:
Paper: From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Propoises 2009 (read it free here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 009-0135-2)
Text Book: Biology, Campbell & Reece, eighth edition 2009
Book: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters 2007

Additional reading can be found on wikipedia under whale evolution.

Again I have found nothing to support your claim. I even searched all the creation sites. I look forward to reading your documentation on this matter. Please reference the book, article, or paper and then quote me the section which you feel supports your claim.

Thanks
Jon

jonperry wrote:I even searched all the creation sites.

Maybe not quite all of them. I don't have time at present to read through this carefully, but on a quick scan it looks like it might address the issue:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/explosi ... -a-creator

Steve, in our recent debate, the crux of your argument seemed to rest on this data point...

Jon,

Did you really get that impression? You must not have heard much of what I said. The point about archeoceti whales was a passing point I made in response to your statements about ambulocetus. If you had not made the point, mine would have had no occasion to come up (By the way, my reference for that information was The Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1992, Vol.23, p.434). It was not in any sense a major point of mine. It is possible that I even misunderstood the Britannica reference, since this is not an area within my expertise.

The main point of my talks, as I kept mentioning, was to refute your proposition, which was "Science Has Proved the Theory of Evolution to be True." At the beginning of my talk I mentioned that I was not attempting, in the time we had, to prove something other than evolution to be true, nor even to prove evolution to be false, but only to address the proposition and to show that science had proven no such thing. I am surprised that you would miss my main point and would think it had something to do with whales.

Since I don't have access to The Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1992, Vol.23, would you mind quoting it here for me? At least the part about Ambulocetus being millions of years more recent than "true whales".

The Corvallis library doesn't carry that edition but I may be able to find it in Portland next time I'm in town.

backwoodsman wrote:

jonperry wrote:I even searched all the creation sites.

Maybe not quite all of them. I don't have time at present to read through this carefully, but on a quick scan it looks like it might address the issue:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/explosi ... -a-creator

This is one of the many creation articles I read. It, just like all the others, states just what my text books and scientific papers say: Ambulocetus is 10 million years older than the first fully marine whales (those first fully marine whales by the way were still 4 legged).

I don't own the set myself. Much of my information was gathered over a decade ago, when I had access to library materials difficult for me to obtain today. However, the information you gave above makes me wonder if I misread the source back when it was in front of me. As I mentioned, this is not an area of expertise with me.

By the way, Jon. I can't help wonder, when meeting people on the crusade you are on, just what it is about this subject that makes it so important to you to convert others to your point of view. Of course, you can say, "It is just a subject of interest to me," or "It is the truth, so I want others to know." However, it is more than this, since it is not just a matter of interest, or education, but rather one of contention for you.

If you were a scientist, speaking to a group of scientists who were searching for the scientific answers that you believe you have found, I can see why you might feel it necessary to inform them of what you think you know. However, why does it matter so much to evolutionists that they must convert all school children, all religious people and everyone who, otherwise, has no special vocation in the natural sciences?

The only explanation I can imagine for such evangelistic zeal among evolutionists is that it is a religion to them. If there was a widespread mistaken notion in society about the temperature on the surface of the sun, I doubt that those who knew the real temperature would make it their life's agenda to correct this arcane scientific mistake.

You said in your debate presentation that knowledge of the theory of evolution has a lot of practical value in making important advances in medicine, agriculture, etc. I would like for you to document for me what some of these practical matters are, and why belief in evolution allows scientific advances that a belief in intelligent design would inhibit.

It was not in any sense a major point of mine. It is possible that I even misunderstood the Britannica reference, since this is not an area within my expertise.

First off, it certainly seemed to be a major point. You brought it up several times and as far as I can tell, it was the only "data point" you presented in refutation to the data I presented.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure that reading comprehension is within your area of expertise.

If we do another debate next year (which I'd love to do by the way, we had a great turn out) I'll have the host provide us with a team of neutral fact checkers.

First off, it certainly seemed to be a major point. You brought it up several times and as far as I can tell, it was the only "data point" you presented in refutation to the data I presented.

I think you may need to listen to the recorded debate. The matter of whales was not even in my notes, and it came up because of your statements about ambulocetus. It was not a major point. The debate was recorded. You apparently did not track with my argument generally.

As far as debating in the future goes, I will not rule it out. However, I have learned that atheists that attend these debates are often merely partisan cheer-leaders and I am more accustomed to debating in the presence of mature audiences. Not only your young friends, but even a couple of men my age on your side, acted so juvenile that I was embarrassed for them. It was clear that the evolutionists in the crowd are not there to learn anything, but to sneer at whatever they cannot refute. This is not my kind of audience. I like to speak to, and debate before, thoughtful and mature crowds.

Is the audio available for download yet?

I have not downloaded it, because I don't know how to do those things. I have to send the file to my webmaster in Connecticut.