Thread:TheSquidychicken/@comment-31308946-20170525193032/@comment-27388204-20170607063332

Well, I see I have been called close-minded. Anyway, I think it is perfectly rational not to accept extraordinary claims when they are unsubstantiated. If someone told me they got a new pet, I wouldn't demand proof for that, but if someone were to tell me that they saw a dragon on the weekend, I would need a little more than their word before I accepted their story. And before you call me close-minded again, let me remind you: one of us would change their mind about the existence of a god. The other would not. In addition, I would also like to add that I am 16 years old, and as your younger brother said he had been studying this "controversy" for 14 years, I believe my assumption was justified.

Now, back to evolution. I would like to re-iterate that evolution is not linear. So, while Ambulocetus may have had certain traits that would have prevented it from being a liable direct ancestor to whales, the fact remains that we know there were many of these amphibious mammals in existence at the same time, and we can as a result say for certain that modern whales are descended from cousins of Ambolocetus.  Below is an image detailing these transitional forms, which you said in a previous post were absent, a statement which I cannot imagine anyone with a sufficient understanding of evolution would make.

These images are all based off actual fossils (and more than one of each type). Their orientation is also based directly off their location in the rock. To see that we have such an unbroken line between quadrupedal mammals, through amphibious forms, all the way to our modern whales, with the fossils in the right locations and the genetics to prove it, is overwhelming evidence for evolution. To try and make another explanation for it (Goddidit, Unicornsdidit, etc.) with no substantiation whatsoever is folly, especially when we have observed evolution in populations (and positive mutations as well, especially in microbes). Even without these fossils, it is no stretch to think that these little, observed changes would add up over time. But with the fossils to prove it, and not just for whales, evolution is a certainty. I have been focusing on the cetacean lineage, but there are transitional forms existing within all the great groups, from arthropods to humans. Indeed, our ancestral lineage is about as complete as that of the whales.

In regards to vestigal structures, yes, they have some function. Well, some of them do. What about the useless leg bones, embedded in the flesh of modern-day whales? What about the immovable flap-like legs on many burrowing skinks? (which were also found on the ancestors to snakes, at the right geological time, and with the genetics to prove it). What about the fifth toe on a dog, which does not touch the ground and has no muscles? Evolution can explain that (the fossil record shows that the ancestors to dogs had plantigrade feet). Creationism, with the exception of "Falldidit", cannot.

I would compare the fossil record as evidence for evolution to a series of photographs of a plant as evidence for growth in plants. You don't watch a plant grow. They live on a different timescale to us. But if you take photos of the same plant, over a series of time, and compare them to each other, you come up with the irrefutable conclusion that plants grow, supported by obervable growth in the cells. The same applies for so-called macroevolution. The fossil record shows the results of evolution at different intervals over a long period of time, and is supported by the observed evolution in our comparatively very short lifespans.

Finally, I would also like to state that I, and anyone who accepts evolution and has more than two brain cells, do not work off the assumption that is fact, in order to prove that it is fact. Unlike AiG, which, as previously stated, utilises extreme bias in order to prove their point, Darwin, Wallace and the other scientists who pioneered the great theory, wanted to find an answer to the great diversity of life, and in the process, came up with the theory of evolution as a conclusion. If evidence to disprove it came along, I would change my mind. That is the underlying difference between science and religion: Science wants to know the truth, religion wants to be the truth.

I would like to wrap up this message with your threat of hell. Please tell me why I should be scared of going to a place that you openly admit you can't prove exists?! I understand that this is more than enough to scare young children into your way of thinking (child abuse IMO), but you're going to have to work harder than that to frighten anyone over the age of 12 into your beliefs. For something supernatural, like hell, give me evidence, or don't give me anything at all.