In another thread that has been locked, a Darwinist on here
said that Dawkins presented an air-tight case for evolution in his book
(that I am currently reading) called "Greatest Show on Earth."

I found this laughable, since Dawkins for the most part says he's not
going to cover the details, but he shows one illustration from another
book (p. 171).

Dawkins claims that as land creatures began in the sea, some later
land creatures returned, including whales and dugonds ([p.170,171).

Though, for decades Darwinsts had zero fossil evidence, but they had
faith. E.J. Slijper in 1962: "We do not possess a single fossil of the
transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals[ i.e.
carnivores and ungulates] and the whales." Slijper, Dolphins and Whales,
University of Michigan Presss, 1962. p. 17.

The first thing to ask, is *which* land creatures? Dawkins says:
"Molecular genetic evidence... shows that the closest living cousins
of whales are hippos... Hippos stayed a least partially on land, and so
resemble their more distant land-dwelling cousins, the ruminants, while
their closer cousins, the whales took off into the sea and changed so
drastically that their affinities with hippos escaped all biologists
except molecular geneticists." (p. 170).

This is the current favored evolutionary explanation. But Dawkins fails
to mention that very recently the "evolutionary theory" of the day was
that whales descended from mesonychids, an order of extinct
carnivorous mammals quite unlike hippos. Yet now, the supposedly
*overwhleming* evidence of mesonychid ancestry PRESENTED
DOGMATICALLY AS FACT has to be explained away. That is, the supposedly
homologous features of mesonychids and whales, mainly teeth and skull
anatomy, once attributed to common ancestry have to now be
explained away as homoplastic/convergent, i.e. having NOTHING to do with
common ancestry.

Dawkins reproduces a diagram of supposed whale ancestry on p.171-2.

The diagram looks nice and pretty when all the creatures are drawn about the same size, with no mention (of course) that for example Basilosaurus was
10 times longer than AMbulocetus. Some of the other claims are not
what Dawkins presents them as either.

For example Pakicetus was drawn as an aquatic creature based on a few
skull ones and teeth (typical). It's discoverer Philip Gingerich
exclaimed: "In time and morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate,
a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged
whales" Gingerish, P.D, J Gelol. Educ. 31:140-144, 1983

Since Gingerish, like Dawkins is a committed materialist, macro-evolution
is the only game in town, so they MUST INTERPRET FOSSILS WITH THEIR
BIASED FRAMEWORK. Therefore, it is not surprising that a few scraps of
bone are wishfully thought to be a "missing link."

However, of course, when the rest of the skeleton was found, it was
realized to be a fast-running land creature.

Basilosaurus (listed in Dakwins BS diagram) was fully aquatic, so hardly
transitional between land mammals and whales.

Barabara Stahl, vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist points out:
"The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek
teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [ like Basilosaurus] COULD
NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THE ANCESTOR OF MODERN WHALES"
Stahl B.J., Vertebrate History, p. 489, Dover. 1985

Basiloaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking) and
some claim that they were vestigal. But they were probably used for
clasping during copulation, according to other evolutionists. For example
Philip Gingerich said "It seems to me that they could have been some kind
of reproductive clasper" The Press Enterprise, July 1 1990, p. A-15

The bottom line, is that I have clearly shown that evolutionists
are extremely biased (and at times disingenuous) they see things through
their biased materialistic world-view, and are constantly distorting the
data to fit into their paradigm. They accuse creationists of doing what
they are clearly guilty of doing, over and over. And, the lemmings
swallow this crap hook, line and sinker. Dawkins shows some whale to
hippo evolutionary picture in his book, and the donkeys swallow it like
it's a fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W81pyiIUX2s

so I see that you're a big fan of
http://creation.com/

Don't address the facts, whatever you do...

Obviously you don't understand that we are unable to find EVERY FOSSIL of EVERY GENETIC CHANGE there was in the past and what the evolutionary biologists are trying to do is to work out a incredibly complicated puzzle , which anyway gets confirmation a lot of the time from genetics. EVEN if there are some inconsistencies in some species and form time to time a new fossil is found and shifts cladograms around the big picture is clear all life on earth has a common ancestor, theory of evolution is the best explanation out there and still stands. Picking holes and asking for EVERY TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL is pretty much ridiculous, considering we are unable to find fossils for every animal that ever existed. You guys are a joke...

what on earth would the point of addressing anything you had to say(or to be more accurate, what creationist websites have to say) you ignore the majority of posts that make a case against these claims anyway. You have shown yourself time and time again to be dishonest and verbally abusive in a remarkably short space if time, so much so that atheists and theists alike have called you out on it.

Point out one post where I was dishonest, liar.

My point is, Dawkins is a known liar, he's been caught in lies so many times,
but so many brainless lemmings swallow every word that comes out of his mouth.

I suppose then, in your universe, plagiarism is not dishonest?

read up more here...

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

How is he lying?

You're really reaching now, aren't you?

not according to the definition of the word "plagiarism"

ROFL.

Do a google search on Richard Dawkins and lies, it's common
knowledge that he's a pathological liar.

That's not even including all the crap he presents as facts in
his books, which aren't even close.

festeringZit, I gave you that link which gskowal has now resposted (same domain, different page)

Why don't you go though the page I originally posted in my ever-so respectful post and read though all of that. Then come back here, and instead of using other peoples' opinions and words to debunk SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS, why don't you do it yourself like a big boy?

Seriously dude, go read talkorgins.org, it can clear up literally everything that you seem to be confused about. You don't even have to stop believing that Jesus Christ came down from heaven to die for you sins so you can live forever after you die and never face death like the mortal you are. You can still believe that crazy nonsense if it makes you happy, just please don't be ignorant on evolution any longer. You are embarrassing yourself.

Regards,
#

List few examples.

no?

wrong forum?

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

you prove my point far greater than I ever could, danke

Yea because I have a cult mentality of the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project.

Anyone who has been to college knows about plagiarism and standards of ethics. When you block quote someone, you give credit even when it's clear that you aren't the original author. What three degrees do you have again? I guess you have two undergraduate degrees and one masters in some unnamed "science" like you mentioned earlier, right??

What does god think about lying btw? I'm sure he has a stance on that..
And is it worse to lie once, or is it worse to continue to lie and to continually propagate some untruth?

Comedy Gold that here we are on the second page already, and
know one wants to talk about Dawkins' intellectual
dishonesty that I clearly elaborated on in the original post.

But, I expected that.

I swear to god I will out troll you... I swear... I sw I swear it I sw... (unintelligible sobbing)

Excuse me!! No you didn't. I addressed your post. Btw. You called him a liar and I asked for examples and I am still waiting.