The National Academy of Sciences suggests that the whale evolved from an ancient quadruped.  In their book, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (2006) they state this as a fact, “The fossil record shows that these cetaceans evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.  They offer the following evidences:  First, some of these mammals crushed and ate turtles.  They “know” this because of the shape of the Mesonychid teeth.  This creature evolved into a species with front forelimbs and powerful rear legs with large feet that were especially useful for paddling (no suggestion was made as to how they evolved).  This animal was known as the Ambulocetus.  The Ambulocetuscould have moved between sea and land” [bold emphasis by me].  According to them this creature could move its back in a strong up and down (no evidence is offered for this “factoid” other than its fossilized vertebrae supposedly indicates this as a truth.  The next fossil in the series was the Rodhocetus.  This “thing” didn’t go on land much according to them (they didn’t say how they know this or reach this conclusion).  Next, the Basilosaurus fossils indicated a whale like creature, but it still supposedly had hind limbs.  Then came the modern whales. (National Academy, 2006).  

Some evolutionists claimed that they had found a fossil of a walking whale.  However, the bones are too high in the geologic column and the bones were found “piled” together with a variety of other creatures which invites bad interpretation when a paleontologist inadvertently (or not) puts the wrong head on the right body.  Also evolutionists claim that certain bones in the pelvic region of modern whales are vestigial.  However, it has been determined that they are not vestigial.  They happen to be critical to the support of whale reproduction (by holding the organs necessary for reproduction in place) (Parker, 2004).

Some alleged evidence offered by evolutionists is a comparison of teeth from a Mesonyx and a modern whale.  The Mesonyx was a four-footed mammal and apparently was kind of like a wolf with hoofs.  Others think the whale evolved from the Tupaia, a very small shrew-like quadruped.  However, there is a high degree of uncertainty among evolutionary scientists.  But that doesn’t stop the museums and textbook writers from stating these things as fact.  All they need is one scientist who wants to see his/her name in “lights” and that’s not hard to find.  Having had some personal experience in dealing with newspaper writers, I can attest that some of them try to put words in the mouths of those with whom they are conducting an interview and at times they can be quite obvious about making it clear that if you want to see your name in print you need to say this or that. 

In a used textbook I purchased a few years ago to see what was being taught at the middle school level in science, I found a description of not only the horse evolution (described above), but also the whale evolution.  The whale statement in this book is very brief and doesn’t specify names of animals, but it does compare the similarity of whales to its supposed ancestor(s), “They have no hind legs, their forelegs are shaped into paddles, and their tales are like those of fish.  Their young are born alive (not in egg shells) and are fed by their mother’s milk, just like the young of land mammals” (Victor, 1997).  There is no real evidence offered supporting their conclusion.

There are many evidences supporting the idea that whales have always been whales.  The Bible says all swimming things were created on day five and that God finished creating after day six and rested on day seven.  That means nothing else has been originated as a kind since then.

As for scientific evidences, it is important to note that there are several types or kinds of whales.  For example, some have teeth and some do not and some dive to great depths while others do not.  Without regard to the diversity of the whales (possibly several kinds were created on day five), there are some interesting evidences that refute evolutionary thinking.  First, there is absolutely no reasonable suggestion for how an air breathing-land living quadruped could have adjusted its method of breathing and processing oxygen through a gill system (or something else).  The first wolf-like animal that entered the salt water to get something to eat would have returned to land.  It could not have possibly lived in the water.  All of its marine physiological functions would have had to have been present at one time for it to survive and breathe in the ocean (Sodera, 2009).

Second, there are countless skeletal differences in the anatomy of the whale and any of its supposed predecessors.  Yes, there are similarities, but this is expected from a God who used a common system of not so unique mosaics to create a unique life form.  The evolutionists seem to favor focusing on the similarities of skeletons and forget to consider the differences (and there are many) (Sodera, 2009).

Third, whales have blow holes and they are always above the head.  There are no land mammals on earth that have a blow hole or nose on top of their head and since a blow hole is necessary for survival it had to be there from the very first day the whale existed.  No blowhole – no whale – no evolution (Sodera, 2009).

Fourth, the teeth of whales are very different from land mammals.  While whales may not need teeth to survive, it does seem relevant that some have baleen plates which they do need to survive.  There is no suggestion on the table (to my knowledge) regarding how teeth might have morphed into baleen plates.  Sodera says it is not possible (Sodera, 2009). 

Fifth, the flippers have no comparative parallel amongst the land mammals.  The whale uses his flipper to swim in a vertical movement pattern.  All land mammals use their legs and swing their tails horizontally when swimming (which doesn’t add to their ability to swim, but perhaps helps with balance).  If the whale did not have a fully functional flipper it could not survive (Sodera, 2009).

Sixth, some whales are able to dive 2000 meters.  Evolutionists have absolutely no suggestion for how that ability could evolve.  The pressure of the water at that depth would be tremendous and the ability to hold ones breath for a lengthy period of time would be required (or the ability to process oxygen through fish gills).  This is not known to be possible with land creatures (Sodera, 2009).

Seventh, whales do not have insulating blubber on their flippers.  Because of this how could they prevent heat loss in cold water?  Again, evolutionists have no reasonable answers.  The answer is in the fact that God created them with a special blood flow system that keeps them from losing heat very fast (Sodera, 2009).

In the end, there are no real evidences supporting the evolution of whales.  There are only speculations, guesses, miscalculations, and manipulations.  Unfortunately, some scientists have a philosophy of ignoring the facts, because they’ve already determined the conclusions.

February 24, 2018 
The Antikythera Mechanism

I read a book sometime back that describes many historic artifacts that have been discovered, but are generally not well known (or published) because they cause many problems for the secular humanists.  One of these artifacts is the Antikythera Mechanism.  It is an object that was discovered on a ship on the bottom of the Aegean Sea from before the time of Christ.  It was found in the year 1901 and was encrusted from being underwater for so long.  The mechanism is (was) a bunch of gears and dials inside of a metal box originally made of bronze.  It was named after the island Antikythera near which it was found.  It was cleaned and studied for many years, but nothing really came of it until 1950, when Derek de Solla Price began to study it.  He concluded that it was a calculator of some sort.  Later in 1974, the gammaradiography technique became available to analyze the artifact.  Price was then allowed to look beneath the corroded metal case and to focus on the depths of the box.  Inside the box are over thirty extremely complex, high-quality, bronze gears.  Price ultimately concluded that the device was used to compute solar and lunar cycles.  He made a working model of the device and found that it could accurately calculate the positions of all of the planets in our Solar System.  It is essentially an analog computer that was used by an ancient people.  The gear works were so intricate that modern gear works would be challenged to match the workmanship.  Since, I have personally visited gear making shops and observed the gear making process, I have a special appreciation for this last statement – gear making is a very precise process.  The point of all this is that an ancient people had the machinery and capability to manufacture these very precise gears.  This is contrary to modern teaching that man is evolving to become smarter and more intelligent.  It is consistent with the Biblical view that man was created substantially more intelligent than today and has lost much of his ability and health over time due to genetic mutation (due to the fall of man in the Garden of Eden).  Perhaps this Antikythera Mechanism was used by navigators just after the flood, although modern secular scientists date it at between 150 and 60 B.C.  Either way it confounds the scientists that something this complex and old exists.  There is considerable evidence that the maritimers of old had maps of the entire world – and that they were very accurate.  This is only one artifact mentioned in the book I read, The Puzzle of Ancient Man: Evidence for Advanced Technology in Past Civilizations. 

February 23, 2018
Articles I've published with the Texas Home School Coalition's quarterly magazine:

1. An article on how to think

2. An article on a family trip to Fort Parker

3. An article on a date night

4. A testimony about my conviction regarding creation happening

February 22, 2018
This is one way evolutionists have successfully supplanted truth (by redefining words)


Webster's 1828 Dictionary

THE'ORY, noun [Latin theoria]

1. Speculation; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice. It is here taken in an unfavorable sense, as implying something visionary.

Merriam-Webster's 2017 Dictionary

1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

The so-called 'theory of evolution' is barely viable under the 1828 definition (speculation), but under the 2017 definition (since they can't prove it's true with facts) it almost works for them, because they changed the definition to mean "generally accepted." However, since evolution is not plausible, the word 'theory' still won't work as a good definition except by using straw man arguments to defend their position(s). 

We see other examples of definition shifting in words like 'hypothesis,' 'fetus,' and many others.

February 21, 2018

The Earth’s Magnetic Field

An excerpt from my book (from chapter nine):

Scientists began measuring the earth’s magnetic field in 1829. Over a period of years, it has been discovered that this magnetic field is losing its intensity on an exponential basis. Further studies of ‘archaeomagnetism’ (the study of the magnetism in pottery, bricks and the like, from the past) reveal that around 1,000 years ago the earth’s magnetic field was approximately 40% stronger than it is today. Additionally, it has been decaying steadily since then. The challenge is to extrapolate the magnetic field back in time to some point when the intensity would have been too great for life to have been sustainable. If the magnetic ‘curve’ was extrapolated back 7,000 years, the magnetic field intensity would have been 32 times greater than it is today; it really could not have been much stronger than that since the earth would have melted from the heat of the core. However, it is also known that the magnetic field fluctuated quite a bit about the time of the Noachic flood. These fluctuations are combined, with the extrapolated curve on a graph, thanks to Dr. Russell Humphreys, to illustrate how this might have looked (see figure 1).

In the final analysis, considering the fluctuations, the steady decay and the time having passed, the loss of intensity in earth’s magnetic field agrees strongly with an earth that was created about 6,000 years ago. Furthermore, the near-term consequences of the diminishing magnetic field appear to validate a bleak outlook for earth’s future.

February 20, 2018