Hall of Fame
Because the sediments the whales are found where laid down in a worldwide flood. You might not believe that because you ignore science, but that's not my problem and I don't even have to use that evidence to show you are wrong. I can still show you are wrong even on your terms.Because whales evolved relatively quickly and recently, so how does that weaken the argument exactly?
If you were using a scientific approach, you'd want to know the number of changes in the DNA that would be required to change a land animal into a whale, and even the number of differences from a whale common ancestor to whales we see today. In fact, your story requires at least some estimates on the number of changes to even be a theory. But common descentists don't even ask the question! How can we expect you to present a scientific idea if you refuse to be scientific? And this isn't the only question that would be asked by scientists if they were interested in the truth of the matter, but common descent is not first about what science leads us to.
Your the one claiming God had no reason to design whales the way He did unless He did things the way you say.In some sense we are in agreement on this point, as I believe God designed through evolution. Perhaps it's you that doesn't understand how God did the designing?
But, since common descent can't work via mutation+natural selection, how do you propose He did it? And don't forget because of genetic entropy you only have a few thousands of years to get it done in.
That's because the gatekeepers of academia make research, but they aren't interested in truth. I showed how this was the case just above, and that's just one point in many that shows the same thing.Asserting you know what "science says" and then saying things that are clearly against the latest research is ... interesting to say the least.
And here we have another point that shows common descentists aren't interested in the truth, in science, because they actually propose, as if it matters, that whales have some DNA that is similar to the DNA of hoofed animals. If you were interested in the truth you'd want to know some actual numbers.Giant 42.6m-year-old fossil was found along coast of Peru and suggests creature could walk on landamp.theguardian.comScientists said on Wednesday they had discovered the 43 million-year-old fossil of a previously unknown amphibious four-legged whale species in Egypt that helps trace the transition of whales from land to sea.www.reuters.com
There's also the matter of the DNA evidence clearly tying hoofed mammals to modern whales more closely than anything else and then the pattern of anatomical structures that also link to hoofed mammals found in these ancient whales.
But further, your links don't show known ancestors of whales any more than Nebraska man was an ancestor of humans.
Showing you isn't for you. Trying to show someone they are wrong is nearly impossible. Showing people the argument between your side and mine is the point, which is why common descents have been advised to run away from debates with YECs because then people can see both sides.Yeah you sure showed me ...