Skeletal Remains of a 43 Million-Year-Old Four-Legged Whale that Lived on land and in the Ocean Have Been Discovered

1920

https://imgur.com/TNpBm3c

So that’s where the real Hillary is.

Baby alligator.

43 million years old

Yeah they have always been good at pulling numbers out of their ass.

Mochele

Bullshit.

So this is sort of a reverse-evolution.

Evolutionists tell us a fish evolved to walk on the land.

apparently this whale wasn't feelin' the mojo of land and walked back into the sea, to stay

and eventually evolved his legs away...


I'll stick with creation, thanks.

PBS had an hours long show about it a few days ago.

Not bullshit, true story.

[link to www.pbs.org (secure)]

Last Edited by The Good Fight on 08/27/2021 10:27 AM

There have been some interesting creatures throughout the eons that have inhabited our world.

And 99% of all of that life no longer exists.

[link to www.discovery.com (secure)]

Cyclic changes occur, we are in one now, we are always going from one state to the next.

The thing about the cosmos, is that it is not static, it is in constant motion, nothing remains the same for very long in this physical dimension.

Last Edited by Reebl on 08/27/2021 10:27 AM

interesting..

and I like the name!

https://imgur.com/a/EkygEVy

.

Thanks for posting the pic!

'Artist's rendition'

Looks a lot more like a gator than a beached whale.

Now Hill dog on the other hand....

Maybe these creatures will torment the Japanese in Hell.

yes because thinking the earth and universe is only 6000 years old because of a religious text is so much less laughable...

Whale is a big assumption

Trust the science?

It's a 4-legged creature that they SAY is a whale

NY post!

Last Edited by Gorgol on 08/27/2021 11:25 AM

What about Landshark?

I was told years ago that the whale was closely related to the wolf. Now we have a whalf

Evolution: Categories of Disproof

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl Popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.


The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century. The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

• The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.
• The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen…)
• The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly…)
• The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
• The question of irreducible complexity.
• The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.
• The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.
• The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).
• The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
• The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own…
• The question of genetic entropy.
• The obvious evidence of design in nature.
• The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how untenable evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be worse than that?

Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

I was told the Hippo.

Well it's also laughable they think that's a whale.

Looks more like something between a garfish and an alligator.

Let's face it. These people are morans.

How do they distinguish 43 million years old from 200 million years old from 1 million years old?

However they feel like it, because the truth does not matter...

But Huskies aren't.

We just look alike!

it fits
so its nice
thx op