Defending the Tale of the Whale

Faith & Science Conversation
22

Greetings and welcome, @Rhythmic_supercat . I appreciate your thoughts.

From what I understand, some interpret the word “pistis,” or belief, as allegiance. That seems to fit into these quotes. Given the environment of allegiance to the Emperor or to Christ, it also seems to fit.
So, do you think that the use of the word was more to indicate allegiance to Christ in the face of adversity, rather than against the understanding God gave us?

Thank you for your thoughts.
Randy
Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Matthew W. Bates, McKnight, Scot: 9780801097973: Amazon.com: Books

1 Like
23

So, do you think that the use of the word was more to indicate allegiance to Christ in the face of adversity, rather than against the understanding God gave us?

Possibly, but I need to explain this a bit further from my understanding of the overall story of Christ and the holy spirit… I can only give you my own understanding of it as clearly as I can write it. I won’t say I’m correct as I don’t know, but it is my life experiences that gives me the confidence that what I understand maybe correct, but I’m always open to listen to others interpretations and understandings r/e this topic.

I certainly don’t have any issue with belief meaning allegiance. I say it because I have an allegiance with the holy spirit. I don’t regard it as a belief, as it’s interactive. Something I communicate back and forward with daily, so I can accept that as an alliance, but where things differ is who or what is it that I have this alliance with and what evidence is there that supports this. The bible has it’s say on the matter , that it is Jesus, so from there I can accept and believe that what the alliance I have with based on what the bible say’s is Jesus Christ.

To break it down in simple terms is the alliance with the spirit or voice in my head is true, It has produced a testimony for me over the decades that is factual, but the evidence it is Jesus communicating with me based on what scripture says, is the belief as I can’t verify it is Jesus that is communicating and guiding me. Hope that make sense.

24

you - The transitional fossils verify it, as does the overall evidence from genetics, the nested hierarchy, and so forth.

You maybe correct, I really don’t know. I accept it could be true, but from my position I can only accept and believe it to be true based on what scientist say, I personally cannot verify these claims or any of the work the scientist have done.

Show me a transitional fossil and you find along side it different interpretations of that fossil.

you - In the eyes of scientists, evolution is one of the most verified theories in science.

Agreed. This doesn’t change the fact I can only accept and believe what they say. None of their work verifiable to me, none of their claims are verifiable to me. This is what I am trying to get across.

If we could verify that the Earth was a globe there wouldn’t be Flat Earthers, right?
I don’t think so
I can’t verify the shape of the earth, I don’t know what the shape of the earth is, all I can tell you is what other people say it is, but I can accept and believe human eye’s have seen it from the iss. Could this be fake? In some people’s thinking Yes, and maybe they’re right, as I can’t verify the iss either, but I can accept and believe it is there and people are inside it and have seen the shape of the earth as a globe in real time. Not really an issue for me, even if it wasn’t a globe. The main thing is it functions properly for life to survive on this rock.

My main focus is historical science and is there any way for a lay person to verify eg Pakecetus evolving to become a whale, or do I have to accept and believe what the science papers say about it?
What is your position. Do you accept and believe that scientist have verified their claims or can you verify it personally yourself and if you did verify it, can you show me how I can do it.

25

Yeah and a classic exampke of where the forensic method fails.miserably is the Lindy Chamberlain " Dingo took my baby" case.

The claim that YEC ignore sound science or use it is utter nonsense. Quoting these idiotic articles ignores the real problem there…

If Christ is the same a God who created the earth, and He said in Matthee 24 Noah was saved from a worldwide flood that killed all living things and,

The apostle peter says he got his revelation from the writings of the prophets (ie Moses amd Isaiah), direct.revelsrion from Christ (ie Matthew 24), and direct.revelstion.from God in heaven (God.spoke to Moses face to face, he spoke to the apostle John for the book.of Revelation using visions amd dreams)…

How then does a Christian ignore that even God is recorded as saying we had a global flood and that the earth was created in 6 literal days?

Forget the secular science, either agree that God is real and salvation is real or…dont.

One cannot be so stupid as to ignore that huge huge problem there.

26

The evidence can be used to show support for a creation as well, but my argument isn’t about what paradigm fits the evidence the best, this is about personally verifying the claims.

I fully understand under the creation, nothing can be verified because it’s a belief, so if evolution is not a belief, than I want to see what I can personally verify the claims and verify the scientist work, so I am open to see if I can do that or not.

27

I understand where you’re coming from. You’re dealing with a subject that can get pretty complex and technical at times, and it can look pretty bewildering for anyone who doesn’t have a background in science. There are some claims that need direct access to physical evidence and expensive laboratory equipment to verify, and some that involve complex and difficult mathematical equations and concepts, so anyone not trained in those disciplines isn’t going to be able to drill down into the details.

But the point isn’t to get you to accept evolution as fact, nor is it to unquestioningly accept what scientists say as if they were some sort of high priests of reality. The point is to ask you to avoid bad arguments and easily falsified claims. Even if scientists did have it all wrong, even if evolution did ultimately turn out to be untrue, and even if the earth really did turn out to be just six thousand years old, there are many, many arguments out there in support of such a position that are easily and trivially seen to be patent nonsense by people with only a very limited understanding of science. Time and time again, I’ve found when addressing young earth and anti-evolution claims, it’s not the complex, head-spinning stuff that I have to explain, but the most fundamental, elementary basics of how science works. Stuff that I would expect a reasonably intelligent high school student to be able to grasp.

For example, one point that I’ve made frequently on these forums is that science relies very heavily on accurate, honest and painstaking measurement—something that the Bible itself demands in no uncertain terms. I wouldn’t expect anyone who isn’t a scientist to understand in detail what accurate, honest and painstaking measurement actually looks like, but I would expect everyone to be aware of and agree with the need for accurate measurement in principle at least. I would also expect anyone with a college education to be able to grasp the most elementary basics—concepts such as error bars and cross-checks, for example—with only a short explanation.

Yet time and time again, I’ve had young earth advocates responding to me by telling me that I’m abusing verses such as Deuteronomy 25:13-16 by applying them to science. They’ve told me, for example, that I’m taking them out of context and that they should only be applied to buying and selling, or that I’m “overthinking things,” or that I’m “using the Bible to attack the Bible” or on one occasion that I was even “taking them too literally.” When I hear arguments such as these, I find it very difficult to avoid the conclusion that I am not just dealing with a lack of understanding and experience, but with wilful ignorance or even conscious and deliberate dishonesty. After all, denying that the need for accurate and honest weights and measurements applies everywhere is effectively demanding the right to tell lies.

4 Likes
28

Thanks for your reply. As I stated creation is a unverifiable claim requiring belief. It states it as a belief and you are free to choose if you want to believe in it or not. There’s nothing hidden or difficult to understand about it. I don’t personally care about scientific yec claims as I can’t verify them either, but I know under that paradigm, I don’t have to and it’s not a requirement for one’s belief or faith.

So maybe just a yes/no answer will clear this up. As evo is not a belief, from where I now sit, it seems i can only accept and believe evolution as being verifiably true as stated by scientist without personally being able to verify the claims myself… Is this true. Yes or no.

29

There is much in life that we accept because we hear that matter from a person we trust, like parents, teachers or pastors. This is true in both secular and religious life, in scientific and other matters.
This is also true for most interpretations of biblical scriptures. We have not invented the interpretations, someone told that this is the way how we should (must) interpret the text. In cases where someone independently forms interpretations about the biblical scriptures, those interpretations may be so off the track of classical Christianity that most believers would disagree.

In the scientific context, the crucial detail is that there must be some sort of evidence or credible explanation behind the claims. If you hear a claim and ask for evidence, the person telling the claim must be able to explain why the claim is likely to be true. In some cases, the evidence or explanation may demand much background knowledge about the topic but in these cases, you could bring that explanation to another expert and ask if the explanation is credible. In this sense, scientific explanations are not a matter of belief. If there is no evidence or credible explanation behind the claims, you simply reject the claim - no need to rest on faith.

In practical life, we do not have the interest or time to verify all claims we hear. We may accept some (scientific) claims as if they were matters of belief. These are matters of belief for us but not generally because anyone could ask for evidence or a credible explanation. If we leave the acceptance at the level of belief, it is our personal choice.

3 Likes
30

Good point, Knor. I believe computers work according to sound electronic engineering rather than magic, but cannot prove it, short of taking years of training and working with their production from the production of silicon wafers to their assembly. I have to have some basic trust in the process and the people who have studied them otherwise.
I can use my experience to judge those sources and processes as feasible and consistent with what I know to be true, however. I suppose we have a similar situation with old earth geology and evolution. I know that those thousands of feet of sediment could not have been ground from granite in days so that alone tells me of its great age.
Evolution is a little more difficult as it is a more abstract concept, formed by looking at layers of evidence and forming an idea, but ultimately depends on accepting the evidence as authentic, and respecting the opinion of those who study it.
Perhaps theology is more abstract than that, as the physical evidence is minimal or at least inferred, and the concepts are all we see.

3 Likes
31

All of the scientific data that scientists are working from is public and accessible by anyone. You can look at the same fossils that scientists are looking at. You can look at the same genetic data that scientists are looking at. You can verify it if you want.

I have never found that to be the case. In my experience, creationists don’t interpret fossils. Instead, they make claims about fossils without any reference to their actual physical features. I have asked many creationists what features a fossil would need in order for them to accept it as transitional, and I never get an answer to that question. Most creationists come in with their conclusion already made, that no fossil can ever be transitional no matter what it looks like.

The way in which we verify the theory of evolution is quite different. The theory predicts that there should have been species in the past who had a mixture of human and ape-like features. Australopithecines verify this prediction. As you can see in the picture above, they have ape features in their skulls. They have a large brow ridge, a sloping forehead, and a pushed out jaw (i.e. prognathous). What is missing from the picture above is a picture of the pelvises.

image
image1280×1093 62.4 KB

A. afarensis is an Australopithecine, and their pelvises were much more like the human pelvis than the chimp pelvis (P. troglodytes). Australopithecines had the bipedal adaptations seen in the human pelvis while also having an ape-like skull. It had a mixture of ape and human-like features as the theory predicted.

Then I guess we could say that evolution is as verified as the globe shape of the Earth.

As stated above, no one is making the conclusion that Pakicetus is evolving into anything. The theory of evolution makes the prediction that there should have been species in the past who had a mixture of terrestrial mammal and cetacean features. Pakicetus has those mixture of features, so it verifies the prediction. It could be that Pakicetus is a side branch of the direct lineage that led to modern cetaceans, and that Pakicetus went extinct without evolving into anything different. Fossils can’t give us information about direct ancestry, only DNA can do that. However, fossils do allow us to test the theory. As Darwin put it:

“In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.”–Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species”

Pakicetus could be a species that is a collateral descendant that still preserves the features found in the direct ancestral line that led to modern cetaceans.

I have verified it with publicly available data, such as the pictures of fossils above. The genetic data is also available online.

4 Likes
32

Imagine that you are on a jury for a murder trial. The prosecution calls a forensic scientist to the stand, and the scientist testifies that the defendant’s DNA, bloody fingerprints, and bloody shoe prints are all over the crime scene. In fact, the defendant’s bloody fingerprints were found on the knife that was used to kill the victim. Outside, the forensic scientists found tire prints that matched the defendant’s vehicle, and inside the vehicle there were drops of dried blood from the victim. The prosecution also presents tons of evidence that the defendant had a motive to kill the victim. However, no one witnessed the murder.

Would you convict? Keep in mind that we are talking about a person’s life, one that may be spent behind bars. So would you feel confident in convicting this person?

3 Likes
33

you - In cases where someone independently forms interpretations about the biblical scriptures, those interpretations may be so off the track of classical Christianity that most believers would disagree.

I agree. I have my own interpretation and I know I could be miles off the target, I also know everyone’s interpretation could be miles off the target, but the difference is the bible states it clearly it is a a belief system. In other words it is unverifiable. There is no misunderstanding there. Interpretation’s of scripture is one thing, but understanding it is a belief system removes any issues with the different array of interpretation’s that come out of it. The problem I do have is when people say that their interpretation is correct. That is no good.

you - In the scientific context, the crucial detail is that there must be some sort of evidence or credible explanation behind the claims. If you hear a claim and ask for evidence, the person telling the claim must be able to explain why the claim is likely to be true.

I agree, but it still only leaves me in a position of accepting and believing. I don’t know how credible any scientist is. Let’s take a look at gingrich [A credible scientist in his field] who discovered pakecetus. He found originally about 30% of the fossil and because he thought it was evolving, he drew in what he thought it would look like. Giving it flippers when it had dog legs.
Thewisssin who discovered ambulocetus based his discovery around part of the inner ear called the sigmoid process, which he himself admitted was questionable like the pakecetus inner ear. The difference being, one was plate like compared to a dolphin being more finger like. Thewissin also put the blowhole half way up the snout believing this is where it would’ve evolved to despite the fact he had not found the upper jaw bone.
These facts don’t actually prove anything one way or the other about evolution, but it does shed some light on these two individuals in how they conducted themselves r/e to the evidence they find and how they want to present to it o the public.

you - These are matters of belief for us but not generally because anyone could ask for evidence or a credible explanation.

Yes this is true, but it still doesn’t verify it and will always circle back to the reality of accepting and believing. It doesn’t matter how much of an explanation someone dishes out, as a lay person I can only accept and believe it.

you - These are matters of belief for us but not generally because anyone could ask for evidence or a credible explanation.

Ive listened to credible stories and explanations on both sides of the coin. One side still states it is a belief, where the other one is much more reluctant to do so, but my previous answer covers this.

34

T_Aquaticus, I understand the process involved in the evolutionary story. I have absolutely no issue if it’s true, I am not writing these things to prove it wrong as I can’t, as I know you can’t prove it to be true.
All I am trying to do is to see if people will say they accept and believe in evolution despite the fact they can’t personally verify it. As a belief in evolution is not acceptable.

People in a similar situation as you are describing in your trial eg have been convicted and gone to jail. Lindy chamberlain being one of them. Being an Australian I watch that case unfold and we all had her convicted due to all the evidence against her, but guess what. we were all wrong.

Do you accept and believe in the evolutionary story as presented by scientist yes or no. It’s an easy question.
If I became an atheist again I would probably accept and believe the story as I did last time with no questions, it’s just this time around I know I can’t verify it

35

Evolution isn’t a story. It is a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence.

I can prove evolution true beyond any reasonable doubt. For example:

"First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/

Of the more than 200,000 retroviral insertions in the human genome more than 99% are found at the same loci in the chimp genome.

Not only that, but the divergence of the LTR’s in full length retroviral insertions recapitulates the consensus primate phylogeny:

“Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. ​(Fig.11A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.”
ibid

image
image800×775 112 KB

The evidence does verify it.

How do you know they were wrong? Because of evidence?

I accept the scientific theory based on the evidence, not on someone’s say-so. Evolution isn’t a story. It is a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence that everyone has access to.

3 Likes
36

I’m going to try a different angle with you as this is deteriorating into a typical creationist v evolutionist debate and I’m not a typical creationist, debating what I believe to be true. I already understand I can’t verify and prove creation and God no more than I can verify and prove historical evolution. You maybe able to personally verify it [I doubt that is even possible], but I can’t and the average layperson will simply accept and believe what is told to them.

Everything you sent to me might as well be written in another language. I am still learning to understand how I learn, usually I’m hands on asking question every step of the way, but i do it small pieces so as not to overwhelm myself.

you - I can prove evolution true beyond any reasonable doubt. For example:

I’m not interesting in proving something true beyond any reasonable doubt, I’m seeing if I can personally verify any historical evolution. Whale evo, that is the topic. From where I sit I can gather the information from various websites. This is not my preferred method, but is the only one available to me, which puts me on the backfoot straight away as I’m now in position where I can only accept and believe what is being said.

If you like let’s start with pakecetus, being found by Dr Gingrich. I believe he found about 25-35% of the fossil and drew in what he BELIEVED what the rest of the animal looked like, giving it flippers. I’m happy to accept this story to be true.

Let’s move to the claimed age of pakicetus being 49/50mill yrs. Can that age be verified to me from what scientist say the age is or do I have to accept and believe this proposed age to be true based on “beyond any reasonable doubt”, which I do accept could be true, but also accept it may not.

I’ll leave it there for now and see what the verdict is

I

37

If you decline to trust anything other than what you personally verify, you are at an impasse. There is no way anyone in one mortal life can retrace the progress of science, from Eratosthenes determining the size of the Earth from shadows down well, through Galileo timing balls rolling down inclines, to you conducting your own radio survey of the microwave background radiation. So what is your suggestion?

2 Likes
38

We all start out at that spot, including myself. The difference is we do learn, if we so choose. If biology isn’t something that you choose to dig into and learn, that’s fine. However, I think it is unfair to those who do learn biology to have their evidenced based conclusions described as just beliefs.

There is a reason that scientists and biologists specifically have accepted the theory of evolution as verified. It’s because of the evidence, evidence that lay people like yourself may not understand. When I get my car repaired I don’t always understand the reasons why a part needs to be replaced, but I do think the car repair person has a good evidenced reason for replacing that part. I don’t think it is just a belief. When a doctor makes a diagnosis and suggests a treatment I don’t think it is just a belief. I think it is a product of evidenced based medicine that the doctor has spent a lot of time and effort to learn.

What’s the difference between “proving something true beyond any reasonable doubt” and “verify any historical evolution”? I would consider them to be the same thing.

My first piece of advice is to work on discerning the difference between facts and opinion. I would also constantly ask “how is this person getting from the facts to their conclusion?”. What is their reasoning? How does the evidence naturally flow from the observations to the conclusions?

We can focus on just the parts found in the fossil itself.

image
image850×462 53.7 KB

Pakicetus is A and C, Ambulocetus (another whale transitional) is B and D. That looks like a lot of bones, more than enough to suggest what the limbs were used for, and especially the whale-like features in the skull.

I would also suggest that you look outside of creationist websites. Look at actual scientific websites, ones that explain what the science is and how science works. Learn what the theory of evolution actually predicts, and why predictions are so important in science.

We could certainly discuss how the age of rocks are scientifically measured. If by “verified” you mean your willingness to learn the science, then that is up to you.

2 Likes
39

If I don’t look at Christianist website, I will simply accept and believe what is being said without question as I use to when I did accept and believe in evo, so I see no issue with raising questions and see if they can be answered.

Let’s go back to when Dr Gingrich first found pakecetus. How much of it did he find and what did he do with the parts he didn’t find when presenting his findings? eg the legs

Same with Ambulocetus. How much of the fossil did Dr Thewissin find and what did he do with the parts that he didn’t find. eg the blowhole

You - We could certainly discuss how the age of rocks are scientifically measured. If by “verified” you mean your willingness to learn the science, then that is up to you.

My ability to learn the science is probably not that of a scientist or student, so my position as a layperson still stands. It is completely unverifiable to me and I can only accept and believe what scientist say r/e to age of rocks being the truth or what you say. I’m not denying the science might be factual, but simply trying to put across i am in no position to verify it to be true or not. I can only accept and believe it at best.

you - However, I think it is unfair to those who do learn biology to have their evidenced based conclusions described as just beliefs.

I can accept if they view their conclusions as verified.

There is a reason that scientists and biologists specifically have accepted the theory of evolution as verified.

I do understand that. They have accepted that the theory of evolution has been verified and I accept and believe that they believe that.

Let’s do a comparison. Do you put these 2 eg in the same category.
Let’s use any 2 different species of giraffes [masai and Nubian] that have been observed and verified. We don’t have to believe that they exist and are related as they are both giraffes, we can observe them

For Whale evo, we’ll use our walking whale Pakecetus and Basilosaurus.
Are you willing to use the example of the 2 different species of giraffe to prove that Pacetus evolved to become Basilosaurus.

Would you put the 2 examples into the same category

you - What’s the difference between “proving something true beyond any reasonable doubt” and “verify any historical evolution”? I would consider them to be the same thing.

Verified,is that there is no doubt. eg Adaptation. We can observe animals in the wild that adapt to a different environment and write down the data as you go. Darwins finches is a eg of verification. If I wanted to, I am confident I could run a similar test and get approximately the same result.

Beyond reasonable doubt. How do you measure reasonable doubt. Who decade’s. From what I know scientist simply accept what they consider reasonable doubt, what ever that may be. I have no idea what reasonable doubt looks like. Maybe give me a measuring stick for it so I have an idea.

especially the whale-like features in the skull.

Can you point out specifically the whale like features in the skull from those eg you are referring to and compare it to a whale so I can see it.
I find pakecetus more hyena looking, with pakicetus having a longer snout.
Ambulocetus looks a more crocodilian.

IThanks T-aquaticus, I do appreciate you writing to me

40

Your point is good, that we are limited in what we can personally verify. But we can check sources to see if they are considered reliable. You can google to see if there are critical reviews of his findings by his peers, you can look at the paper about it and see which bones were found. There is still an element of faith, but you can look for data that supports or undermines his findings. There are a lot of things in life I cannot verify personally, but can gather enough evidence to make an informed judgement, so it is not blind faith.

2 Likes
41

I agree, not everything is verifiable, and that is what I am trying to put across. I constantly get the argument that scientist have verified evolution. Well that’s good for them. What am I suppose to do with that argument?

I accept the fossils used for the whale evo claim are real. I also accept the claim could also be true. My main argument is, I personally cannot verify that a 4 legged dog like animal with a straight tail evolved to become a whale with a fluk on it’s tail. We have no eg of a transitional fossil where the tail was changing from a straight wagging left to right to a tail to having a fluk going up and down. That would be a very significant transitional fossil if it exist.
It is either a fully fledge dog like tail, or it is a whale with a fluked tail. Nothing in between. This doesn’t prove it didn’t happen, but this allows for doubt and scrutiny from my perspective.

As far as reliability goes. Dr Gingrich found originally 25/35% of the fossil pakecetus. He believed that the animal had flippers because it was evolving, so he draws flippers on his pictures. I would of preferred if he said, this is all we found. i believe it had flipper, but we can’t confirm it and just left them off. It wasn’t until Dr Thewissin found more of pakecetus that they realised Pakecetus had dog legs.

Dr Thewissin did the same thing with Ambulocetus, believing the opening for the snout had evolved halfway up the nose to become a blowhole. When questioned about it he admitted that he did not have the top jaw bone and admitted that the opening could be at the tip of the snout. These are just a couple of issues with whale evo.

As I keep saying. None of this proves whale evo did not happen, but it does highlight the integrity levels of these 2 men doing the science on these fossils.

But I am open to see if I can verify whale evo, or if I can only accept and believe it, based on what the scientist have said. So far, I see I only have accepting and believing as a choice.