Real Science Friday: Whale of a Tale, Telethon, & Saturn's Rings
Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
* Whale Ancestor Now Denied by Discoverer: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss on articles on Saturn and whales from the latest issue of Creation magazine, July - September 2011. As documented in Creation and on video in Dr. Carl Werner's fabulous Evolution / Creation DVDs, the discoverer Dr. Philip Gingerich now admits, "I speculated that it might have had a fluke [whale-like tail], I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail." And the same with the whale-like flippers, Gingerich said: "Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn't have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale."
* Bob & Fred Suggest the BEL Science Store: If you enjoy the science you hear about on our fast-paced RSF radio shows, you'll really love the books, audio, and DVD science materials in our online store's Science Department! The KGOV September Telethon is 7.5% toward it's goal of $20,000 in donations and purchases from our store, and $20 per month pledges! So, please help keep RSF airing and online for another year by shopping in the KGOV Store, getting a BEL monthly subscription, making a one-time donation or a monthly pledge to RSF and Bob Enyart Live!
* Cassini Spacecraft Scientist Lists Evidence for a Young Saturn: Bob and Fred also discuss the extensive evidence against an old age for Saturn and its rings as reported by one of the Cassini spacecraft's leading scientists, Dr. David Coppedge!
Slogan/motto:
"Beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. " ~Yoda
Looks just like the thing that crawled outta the harbor and ate Tokyo.
Dr. Philip Gingerich's Rodhocetus appears to be an amphibian. An amphibian is making the change from the sea to a land creature; not a likely near ancestor for a whale.
Slogan/motto:
If you want meaning in life, then do something meaningful.
Reputation:
September 6th, 2011, 09:18 AM
This story just highlights the dishonesty of the creationists. Fossils of Rodhocetus were found in 2001 - when was this drawing made? So Dr Gingerich speculated on the shape of the tail when making this sketch, but later changed his mind.
There's another sketch of Rodhocetus made in November of 2001 here that shows it without a fluked tail.
But so what? It's not like the fluked tail would be what shows this was a transitional species between land-dwelling mammals and modern whales - there are lots of features of the skeleton that show this clearly.
And what about all the other species we've discovered showing a gradual transition, before and after Rodhocetus? What about Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus, etc.? We have a large number of fossils that clearly show gradual changes from mostly land-dwelling mammals to modern whales, but dishonest creationists pick one small feature of one creature in the chain, that someone changed his mind about, and this is supposed outweigh all the evidence we have?
This is so dishonest, it's why I don't see the leading creationists as sincere believers. They're people who have a career telling the uneducated rubes what they want to hear. They must have a pretty low opinion of their audience.
Slogan/motto:
If you want meaning in life, then do something meaningful.
Reputation:
September 6th, 2011, 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
Please point out the dishonesty.
Uh, that would be the part where he nit-picked a tiny detail, implying that our understanding of whale evolution depends on that tiny detail, when it reality it was completely superfluous. Have you heard of "lying by omission"? We have a very full set of fossils showing the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals that Pastor Bob "forgot" to mention.
Uh, that would be the part where he nit-picked a tiny detail, implying that our understanding of whale evolution depends on that tiny detail, when it reality it was completely superfluous. Have you heard of "lying by omission"? We have a very full set of fossils showing the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals that Pastor Bob "forgot" to mention.
Sounds like you need to chill out and address what was said rather than what you imagine was "implied".
Uh, that would be the part where he nit-picked a tiny detail, implying that our understanding of whale evolution depends on that tiny detail, when it reality it was completely superfluous. Have you heard of "lying by omission"? We have a very full set of fossils showing the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals that Pastor Bob "forgot" to mention.
No you don't. All you have are a bunch of dead animals that you think are related to whales. You have no evidence beyond speculation that this is actually true. Of course, you guys are so desperate for missing links, you'll sign off on anything these days.
Slogan/motto:
If you want meaning in life, then do something meaningful.
Reputation:
September 13th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack
No you don't. All you have are a bunch of dead animals that you think are related to whales. You have no evidence beyond speculation that this is actually true.
What we have are fossils from a land-dwelling creature that lived 50 million years ago, with many features that are sort of similar to whales. Then we have other fossils that aren't quite as old, which are more similar to whales. Then some others that are not as old as that, which are even more like whales. There's a nice line of gradually different creatures which, the younger they are, the more like whales they are. How can that be explained except by gradual evolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom From Mabank
If God did not exist, scientific experimentation and scientific discoveries would not be possible. To do science, one must assume that there is rational thought and laws of logic. Both of these are not physical and not part of an atheist's worldview where only matter exists.
What if we don't assume that, but we just look around us, and since we can describe how the physical universe seems to follow patterns, without any exceptions that we've ever seen, we provisionally accept that it always does?
Quote:
The atheist must assume that his senses and memory are reliable.
What if we don't assume that, but we just note that our senses and memory seem to roughly correspond to an external reality? Of course our senses and memory have problems, so what if we come up with methods of figuring out how not to let those problems lead us astray? And what if we called this set of methods "science"?
Quote:
An atheist has to assume and believe that there is uniformity of nature, that the laws of nature are law-like and will not change arbitrarily in the future.
What if we don't assume that, but just go by our observations? We can note that the behavior of the physical world seems to be the same from year to year. Since it's so constant within our observation, we could, at least provisionally, accept that the universe always behaves this way. Then what if we make observations of things that we're seeing as they were 10 billion years ago, and even back then, we can figure out that things behaved the same as they do now? I think that we'd be justified in thinking that physical behavior has always been the same.
Creationists seem to have a really hard time grasping the notion that science changes. A creationist, accustomed to the flat inerrant finality of his story, doesn't really seem capable of understanding that nothing is inerrant and that science regularly has to change its conclusions and assumptions.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Creationists seem to have a really hard time grasping the notion that science changes.
I think you mean to say that scientific ideas change. This creationist knows full well that ideas, explanations and theories can change.
Quote:
A creationist, accustomed to the flat inerrant finality of his story, doesn't really seem capable of understanding that nothing is inerrant and that science regularly has to change its conclusions and assumptions.
Slogan/motto:
You must see clearly the big picture before you can see details.
Reputation:
September 12th, 2011, 08:31 PM
Granite,
Actually "science" is an abstract concept and can't change or do anything. It's "scientists" using science who change.
If God did not exist, scientific experimentation and scientific discoveries would not be possible. To do science, one must assume that there is rational thought and laws of logic. Both of these are not physical and not part of an atheist's worldview where only matter exists.
The atheist must assume that his senses and memory are reliable. An atheist in a random chance evolutionary worldview has no reason to assume and believe this is so.
An atheist has to assume and believe that there is uniformity of nature, that the laws of nature are law-like and will not change arbitrarily in the future. An atheist has no reason to believe that the physical laws will not change.
Now atheist do science, and assume all these things, but he has no reason to assume them. When an atheist uses laws of logic and rational thought, he is inconsistent, arbitrary, and irrational within his worldview. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview.
For the atheist to think rationally, use laws of logic, assume his sense are reliable, and believe that the physical laws will not change tomorrow, his worldview has to be wrong.
Hybrid Mode
