Whales

[UTEOTW]

Also should point out one new discovery.

Whales get the bends.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4122119.stm

Studies of some beached whales have shown that they dies from the bends. Further review has shown that skeletons of deep diving whales show evidence of long term, chronic affliction with the bends. The current problems are due to interaction with sonar from ships, but the bones show this going back much farther.

Seems like one more trait from land dweeling animals carried forward to the sea by the whales.

 

[UTEOTW]

Gup's around and posting again. On another thread I tried to get him to support his claims on threads on information and the Grand Canyon and Snowball Earth and ice cores. He passed. This has not prevented him to continue to claim since then that it is the interpretation of the facts from the creation that we disagree on even though he (nor any other YEer) cannot provide us this better interpretation.

We'll try again here.

Gup posted about whale fossils that he believes them to be discretely created and that there is "no observational evidence" they they should be connected by common descent.

Well, here is another chance for him to suppoert the assertion. Please tie in the discretely created whale species with the correct postion of these fossils in time for the proposed changes, the atavistic legs in the modern whales, the vestigal olfactory genes in modern whales and why whales show the same genetic relationships with even toed ungulates that the fossil record shows among other things discussed on the thread.

 

[just-want-peace]

This has not prevented him to continue to claim since then that it is the interpretation of the facts from the creation that we disagree on even though he (nor any other YEer) cannot provide us this better interpretation.

For some unexplained reason, UTEOTW, you seem to be totally unable to process the following fact:

"We believe God, not science"

That IS our interpretation!!!!

You say that rock is 100,000,000 years old; we say that it is ~6-10K years old & that's simply how God created it!

Or to say it in simpler terms, God said "let it be", and it was; just like man found it (whatever "IT" happens to be), and then started deducing all the ancient age interpretations that are now so prevalent.

If you choose to accept man's version, fine, but don't start dinigrating others because we don't agree.

One more time, try to understand. The "evidence " is the same for all; some of us just prefer to accept by faith the scenario that God gave for it all, while you & others prefer to believe man and his scenario!

All your 'epistleing' and palavering is not going to alter our acceptance of God's version.

Now if you are talking about some topic that God does not address, then I'll listen to your "expertise", but if God has said "---", then I'm going to believe Him, regardless of your scientific interpretations.

Once more, our "INTERPRETATION" is that we believe God rather than man when there are conflicts!

So please, get a new horse to ride and drop the "What's your interpretation?" The horse you insist on riding has died!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

The evidence left in creation does not leave the literal 6000 year seperate creation as a viable interpretation.

Why can't I believe that God that filled my eyes with light from the great galaxy of andromeda after traveling 3 million years to get there? There were no men involved between his creation and my eyes. Therefore, the great galaxy of andromeda is not a lie.

The interpretation that we must take the first chapter of Genesis literally, however, is from men such as yourself. There is a possibility of error there.

I choose to believe God rather than men.

 

[just-want-peace]

Paul of Eugene sez:

I choose to believe God rather than men.

Glad to hear it.

Now, What does God SAY?

 

[Gup20]

This is a very easy question - let me be direct.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

1Cr 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.


Clearly the Bible - which is ultimate truth - eliminates the possibility that A) Land Animals came before marine animals, and B) that land animals and marine animals have a common ancestry. So right off the get-go the evolutionary conjecture is trumped by the Word.

I am reminded of the little AiG sketch Ken Ham does when he speaks. He draws 2 half circles separated by a space. He asks the question "what should this be?". Most people 'fill in the blank space' and say it should be a circle. However, Ken Ham simply states that nothing is missing it is exactly the way he drew it. If you look for something that is not there, you can invent all sorts of 'links', but that doesn't make them true. Clearly, there is no observational evidence in the present that can verify the evolutionary claims. There is only fossils of the past which must be interpreted to mean anything. Unfortunately, no one (at this forum anyway) was here a few million years ago to observe this evolution. For now, you must have faith that it happened as evolution describes.

Unfortunately for evolutionists, that faith is contrary to the faith one recieves from reading the Bible.

From AiG:
To make a tail for a whale
The difference between the tail of a whale and a cow’s tail (or that of any other mammal, for that matter) is quite simple. When a cow swats the flies from its back, it moves its tail generally from side to side. A whale, however, can’t do this. Not that it has to swat flies, but it does have to move its tail up and down in order to swim.

Now while this differing way of moving a tail may sound insignificant, it isn’t. It is enough to show that the supposed evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals cannot possibly be true. Why not? Simply because that little change of direction in the way the tail moves, could not happen without some rather elaborate changes between the side-swinging creatures and those which swing their tails vertically.

Any land-dwelling mammal wishing to evolve into a whale could certainly practise moving its left-right tail in an up-down fashion, and there is no doubt that it could certainly improve up to a point. Maybe even learn to swim faster and catch more fish. But after that its tail movement would begin to crush its reproductive apparatus against its pelvis. This would have a tendency to lower the animal’s sexual urges somewhat and it would soon lose interest in reproduction—not a very positive evolutionary step. Taken to extremes, this new tail movement would simply crush the whole pelvis. Such a transition would have no survival value whatsoever. The selective pressures of the environment, or natural selection, would work against any such change of tail on a land-dwelling mammal.

To make the claim as evolutionists do, that land-dwelling mammals evolved into sea-dwelling whales is to claim that there had to be simultaneous accidental genetic changes which allowed the tail to grow larger while the pelvis grew smaller. And all this ignores the problems caused as the ever shrinking pelvis or hip bones reached the point where they were far too small to support the creature’s weight on its hind legs, and yet still too large to let the animal move its tail up and down with any efficiency.

Of course, tails are not the only thing on whales that make them different from land-dwelling mammals. To totally convert a land-dwelling mammal into a whale you would also have to replace its sweat glands with thick layers of blubbery fat, change its eyes so that the light rays under sea water are still brought to focus on the retina, change its skin to produce a curious surface efficiently designed to streamline the flow of water, and also find some way to enable it to give birth to young which suckle under water without drowning, a rather essential ‘adaptation.’

In other words, if you wanted to make a tail for a whale you could not do it by using evolutionary random chance small mutational accidents on some land-dwelling mammals, no matter how long you let the process take. A whale’s tail is too well designed to be made that way. In fact, it shows all the evidence of the intelligent engineering which we associate with deliberate creation.

 

[Gup20]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp

Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are actually mammals, not fish. But they live their whole lives in water, unlike most mammals that live on land. But evolutionists believe that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. One alleged transitional series is prominently drawn in Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. This chapter analyzes this and other arguments for cetacean evolution, and shows some of the unique features of whales and dolphins.

Wonderful whales
Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example:

Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.

A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.

Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.

Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.

Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.

Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).

Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

Many cetaceans find objects by echo-location. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it's the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin's ‘click’ pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.1

One amazing adaptation of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the ‘melon,’ a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This ‘melon’ is actually a sound lens—a sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes.2

For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.

Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:

Mesonychid (55 million years ago)

Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)

Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)

Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)

One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)

... article continues... to to the page to see it

 

[Gup20]

http://trueorigin.org/whales.asp

Here is one that is somewhat technical.

 

[UTEOTW]

More copy and paste. Underwhelming.

Did you even bother to read the thread to see what the question was? It appears that you merely saw "whale" so you went to your favorite websites and punched in that keyword and copied out what you got. Your response would be more useful if you would at least address the problems present to you. Let's refresh a couple of major points.

One of the things you were asked to do is to tell us why whales should be so closely related genetically to the group of land animals that the fossil record shows it is a member of if the fossils really do not show a transitional series. Saying that a whale and a camel would be expected to have extremely similar genetics because of their extremely similar morphology and lifestyle just will not fly in this case. I think a four year old could explain why not.

"Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates," Shimamura M, Yasue H, Ohshima K, Abe H, Kato H, Kishiro T, Goto M, Munechika I, Okada N, Nature. 1997 Aug 14;388(6643):666-70.

Another topic you were asked to adress is why whales would have scores of pseudogenes for making a sense of smell useful only on land if they were not descended from land dwelling animals.

"Olfactory receptors in aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates," J. Freitag, G. Ludwig, I. Andreini, P. Rössler, H. Breer, Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, Volume 183, Number 5, November 1998, Pages: 635 - 650.

I'll leave it at those two for now. Let me know when you find some discussion on these two points.

"The difference between the tail of a whale and a cow’s tail (or that of any other mammal, for that matter) is quite simple. When a cow swats the flies from its back, it moves its tail generally from side to side. A whale, however, can’t do this. Not that it has to swat flies, but it does have to move its tail up and down in order to swim.

Now while this differing way of moving a tail may sound insignificant, it isn’t. It is enough to show that the supposed evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals cannot possibly be true. Why not? Simply because that little change of direction in the way the tail moves, could not happen without some rather elaborate changes between the side-swinging creatures and those which swing their tails vertically."

False.

Let's look at one of those closely related animals. Deer. Have you ever watched a deer run? Did you notice how they develop all that power? It is from large front to back movements, not side to side. Another example. If you have to pick up something very heavy, do you lean over to the side and used those muscles that give you left and right movement or do you put the weight in front of you and pick up using the powerful muscles that bend your body forward and back?

So it would be as whales developed. The most powerful muscles were those that were adapted for producing the movement of the tail for propulsion.

"Any land-dwelling mammal wishing to evolve into a whale could certainly practise moving its left-right tail in an up-down fashion, and there is no doubt that it could certainly improve up to a point. Maybe even learn to swim faster and catch more fish. But after that its tail movement would begin to crush its reproductive apparatus against its pelvis. This would have a tendency to lower the animal’s sexual urges somewhat and it would soon lose interest in reproduction—not a very positive evolutionary step. Taken to extremes, this new tail movement would simply crush the whole pelvis. Such a transition would have no survival value whatsoever. The selective pressures of the environment, or natural selection, would work against any such change of tail on a land-dwelling mammal."

This can be shown to be false simply by showing one example. Go look at Georgiacetus. Its body shows that it was almost completely sea going. So much so that it is the earliest whale found outside of the area where the earlier fossils were found. (Georgia, USA for this one.) Its pelvis retains most of the features of its land dwelling ancestors even though it is an aquatic creature. It obviously managed to reproduce. So the claim is false.

But lets look a little more closely at why. It seems that this creature still used its limbs more than its tail. for propulsion. Since the powerful tail movements came along after the transition to an aquatic life, there is no need to speculate on a powerful tail crushing a needed pelvis. The pelvis lost its use and started transitioning to the remnant that it is today about the time the tail started becoming more like what is seen today.

This is all out in the literature and mostly freely available. Did your sources not bother to read before they claimed to speak intelligently?

I'll skip all the willy-nilly speculation about how the whale appears to be intelligently designed. Would an intelligently designed whale get the bends?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4122119.stm

"[iThe lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared.[/i]"

Ambulocetus and Gandakasia are completely aquatic? You might want to get that discovery published.

"One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for ..."

This is known as Haldane's dilemma. Even at the time of publication, Haldane said in the very paper "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision."

And he was right. Subsequent population genetics since this was published in 1957 have shown the intial analysis to be flawed, just as the author thought it might be. Of course this has not prevented your source from continuing to use it.

For an example, see Wallace, Bruce, 1991. Fifty Years of Genetic Load - An Odyssey. Cornell University Press.

You will also find that the Remine reference in there is after the publication of this refeence so he should have been aware if he claims to speak authoritively. Remine also used a population of SIX in his model. Just what realistic scenario was he trying to model with such a limited selection?!?

I also see your source continues to make the false claim that the pelvis of ambulocetus was not found.

 

[Gup20]

One of the things you were asked to do ...

UTE, I have been asking your for months now to prove it Biblically BEFORE we deal with any scientific evidence. Why? Because (unlike scientists) the Bible is ultimate truth and is NEVER wrong. I can, using the Bible and the Bible alone debunk the whole of evolution. I can then offer alternative interpretations of the evidence you claim supports evolution.

You, however, have no absolute foundation whatsoever for your faith in evolution. You have already told us how you think the Bible is wrong - an allegorical fairy tale made up to appease the minds of simpletons. You engorge your humanist ego by proclaiming that you know better than God.

Well God has an answer for people like you:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Indeed! Where were you when the world was created? What witness can you produce who saw it happen any different from the way God describes it in His Word? What written record can you produce of an eye witness? The Bible is the only eyewitness account from the One who was there, but you have chosen to reject it and instead believe that "man can be as God" determining for themselves what happened - disbelieving God's own Word.

 

[UTEOTW]

Look around the threads.

You have been shown enough to at least demonstrate just using scripture that an alternate interpretation of the creation account is at least a possibility. Not, of course, to your acceptance that the non-literal view is the correct one. But there it has been shown. It just is not true to say that a case has not been presented. I have told you repeatedly that you will never find proof of evolution in the Bible because it is not a text concerned with such scientific details. Those are unimportant to the spirital side of things.

Now you like to assert repeatedly that it is not the observations that are in dispute but their interpretations. Yet, you shrink from request to show in detail what these other interpretations of the data are! Occasionally we will get some massive copy and paste that usually does not even address the issues being disucssed. But we never get the actual issues that are raised discussed.

And there is good reason. YE does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to what God reveals in the creation. That is why it simply cannot be true.

There are good Christian men and women who in faith do not hold to a literal view of the creation. Therefore it is not true to say that it cannot be done even if you yourself are not convinced.

But you run a big danger here. And this is a key part of Satan's plan for using YE to harm the cause of Christ and tempt more folks right into Hell. When you vehemently insist that the only acceptable version is to take a literal interpreation and when you constantly proclaim that the differences are a matter of interpretation of the data and when you consistently fail to be able to produce those better interpretations, then you make our faith and our beliefs appear to be based on a falsehood. And that is exactly why Satan wants YE promoted.

If you accept a literal six day creation on faith then great. We are believers and I will not even call you out on what I personally feel to be a false belief. It does not matter. But in that case give up the idea that the Creation itself also shows a recent creation. Take it simply on faith. But when you do as you do, and say that creation itself also agrees with you, then I will call you out and ask that you defend such claims. They are false claims and I will expose them as such in the hope of eliminating the scourge that is YE. And when you show the inability of YE to answer for such observations by ignoring the data against YE and by not even bothering to address the claims before you if you do respond, you dig the whole deeper and deeper by exposing yourself the lack of an answer in the realm of YE.

YE has no consistent theory to explain the observations we see of the creation. Period.

 

[UTEOTW]

So, can any YEers give us a reason that whales would be so genetically similar to the deer and camels and pigs as the fossil record predicts and why whales should have dozens of pseudogenes for a land dwelling sense of smell if they really did not evolve from a land dwelling animal that is not arbitrary and capricious?

Any one want to tackle why a perfectly, intelligently designed fully aquatic animal would get the bends while diving for its food? Why would it have to breath air instead of getting oxygen from the water like other marine animals? Why would it not have a system for detecting water born odors like other maring animals but instead have a deactivated sense of smell for the land?

 

[UTEOTW]

No one?

 

[UTEOTW]

Surely there is a copy and paste from out there that you can make that adresses the psuedogenes for a sense of smell and the genetic testing of whales that show them to be closely related to pigs and camels. Surely you have something to say.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
It's another reason scientists realize that whales evolved from land animals.

That explains these damaged genes. They are no longer needed, and so mutations damaging them are of no consequence.

Creationists can only shrug and suggest God was just being (playful?)

According to the Bible, those scientists are wrong. For it clearly says that on day five that God created all of the marine life including the great sea creatures (whales) and then on day six, He created all of the land animal life and then created man.

 

[just-want-peace]

According to the Bible, those scientists are wrong. For it clearly says that on day five that God created all of the marine life including the great sea creatures (whales) and then on day six, He created all of the land animal life and then created man.

Careful, TC, comments like this will get you accused of keeping true "intellectuals" from becoming a Christian.

It's OK to believe God so long as you don't believe Him literally. People that do that are just uneducated, simple, showing their fundamentalist ignorance and driving "thinking" people from Christianity.

Hang in there bro. The opposition writes tomes "proving" their beliefs, but they have yet to come up with anything to refute THE WORD except their own willful stubborness.

These so called debates would be so much calmer if they (evolutionists) could find the guts to simply admit that they have more faith in science than they do in God's word. But apparently if they did that they would have to re-thing their creation premise and that's obviously a no-no!

If they would just admit that there is truly no PROOF for either stance and interpretation of the evidence requires that you either believe science, or God!

They place their faith in science, while we place our faith in God's word. Real simple!

 

[Gup20]

Look around the threads.

You have been shown enough to at least demonstrate just using scripture that an alternate interpretation of the creation account is at least a possibility.

Indeed - and I have not yet seen a non-literal exegesis from any evolutionists here. You guys claim the Bible HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE WORLD OR THE ORIGIN OF MAN. Re-affirmed over and over and over... and then you spout off evolutionary doctrine in place of any exegesis.

I have told you repeatedly that you will never find proof of evolution in the Bible because it is not a text concerned with such scientific details.

See what I mean.. here it is again.

Now you like to assert repeatedly that it is not the observations that are in dispute but their interpretations.

No I would assert that you are absolutely wrong. The Bible does indeed have a lot to say about creation and the origin of man.

Yet, you shrink from request to show in detail what these other interpretations of the data are!

You mean like when I repeatedly tell you that if you take the Bible as your presupposition, and assume thousands of years instead of millions... then take the Bible again and assume a world wide flood that you can see there was plenty of catestrophism to account for 'millions of years' of catestrophic layers rather than uniformitarial yearly layers in the geologic strata? Or when we see that the vast majority of fossil layers on earth is strata laid down by water? Or when we see that there are marine fossils everywhere on earth (including the top of Mt. Everest? Or like when we watch Mt. St. Helen errupt and lay down thousands of "yearly layers" in just hours. Or like when we watch large canyons with hundreds of 'yearly layers' laid down in just days? Or like when we see physics calculations that allow for starlight time from galaxies billions of light years away to get to earth quickly because of the general theory of reletivity? Any of this ringing a bell?

They place their faith in science, while we place our faith in God's word. Real simple!

More accurately, they (evolutionists) place their faith in Man's ideas... we (creationists) place our faith in God's Word.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Or like when we watch Mt. St. Helen errupt and lay down thousands of "yearly layers" in just hours."

YOu have made this claim before. I gave you a whole new thread to back it up. You refused to do so.

"Or when we see that the vast majority of fossil layers on earth is strata laid down by water?"

As I have told you before, you need to Google taphonomy and learn why this assertion is false. This is the study of fossils from the death of the animal to when the fossil is found. Very few fossils are consistent with your assertions of how they formed. The environments in which they were preserved is just not what you assert. From fossils buried in ash to fossils buried in very fine silt. Another example is all of the fossils that show sign of scavenging. You can tell what they were scanvenged by from the teeth marks. Hard to be scavenged by, say, a dog when you are under hundreds of feet of water.

"Or like when we see physics calculations that allow for starlight time from galaxies billions of light years away to get to earth quickly because of the general theory of reletivity?"

Except that the physics violates relativity and uses and unworkable coordinate system. It also should predict that light would be blue shifted instead of red shifted. That is what happens to light falling into a gravity well. It is simply wrong.

"Any of this ringing a bell?"

Yes, these are good examples of bad YE "science." These are the types of things that drove me from YE.

 

[UTEOTW]

And none of this has anything to do with why whales share dozens of pseudogenes for a land based sense of smell of why they test so genetically similar to the camels and pigs and deer as the fossil record tells us they should. It certainly cannot be because of that old similar shape and lifestyle that YEers try and fall back upon.

I guess you could not find anything to spam us with so you went off topic. Doesn't work.

 

[P_Barnes]

Originally posted by Gup20:

Look around the threads.

? Or when we see that there are marine fossils everywhere on earth (including the top of Mt. Everest?

This is a new one to me. Do you have references for the claim that marine fossils were found on Mt. Everest?

I mention this only because most YECs I've heard say that Mt. Everest and basically any hill over 500 ft. was created post-flood. This is how they get around the fact that over 11 feet of rain per hour for 40 days would be required to cover Mt. Everest, and that this would denude land formations down to crystalline rock, and would release so much energy and heat the atmosphere to uninhabitable levels. You know, those silly scientists and their "facts". Now if you'll excuse me, I need to git to church and start handlin' some snakes.