Next pages 56-59 talks about Basilosaurus, a marine mammal that never lived alongside Pteranodons despite what is depicted in the picture on Pages 56-57. Basilosaurus is a misnomer. When it was first discovered, people thought it was a marine reptile until later on it was discovered to be a marine mammal that lived 39-34 million years ago, more than 30 million years after Pteranodon died out. Although its other name, Zeuglodon, is its appropriate name, unfortunately its misnomer name, Basilosaurus, became officially stuck.
On page 58, Wieland talks about the stories made by sailors who claim to have seen giant “sea serpents” swimming about in the water with descriptions of them having snake-like bodies and be nothing like any animal seen today. According to Wieland,
“With its serpentine shape, Basilosaurus is only one of a number of creatures we find as fossils that could have been responsible for some of these reports.”
Although Basilosaurus (or Zeuglodon) has been extinct for 37 million years, there has been sightings made in the past centuries of “sea serpents” cryptozoologists identify as living descendents of Zeuglodon, primitive whales with serpent like bodies. Critics and skeptics have often claimed them to be misidentifications of seal, walrus, manatees, and many types of modern whales. Still, that doesn’t stop some sailors and cryptozoologists from believing in these creatures to be real, yet very elusive. The sea serpents, according to the sightings, are described to have hair on their bodies, heads that resemble horses, tiny stubs on their heads, small limbs near their long tails and larger limbs near their heads, and in some cases bore a fish tail at the tip.
There is a 0% chance of a live sighting of a non-avian dinosaur and their Mesozoic contemporaries. No dinosaur, plesiosaur, ichthyosaur, pliosaur, and mosasaur ever had such features mentioned above, but a zeuglodon, or a relative species of it possibly does. Especially when all these descriptions of them having serpentine bodies, hair, big forelimbs, tiny hindlimbs, and a fish tail certainly do match the descriptions of such primitive whales. If what cryptozoologists claim to be true, then there could be a possibility to see for the first time a live Zeuglodon descendant or a relative species of it swimming in the ocean today. After all, the coelacanth fish that had been extinct 70 million years ago was found alive off the coast of South Africa in 1938 – a Latmeria species of coelacanth that is, the only surviving coelacanth species to have been found alive today while the other coelacanth genera, the Coelacanthidae, have died out. But even though some of the sighting reports do seem to have the phrase ”I saw a Zeuglodon.” written all over it, all other reports have been known to be nothing more made-up hoaxes and exaggerated versions of live and dead shark, modern whale, manatee, seal, and octopus sightings made up to provide entertainment for friends and family and as a publicity stunt.
Some Imaginary Ancestor?
Basilosaurus, or so Wieland claims, is used by evolutionists as an [sic] in-between modern whales and “some imaginary ancestor from which they were supposedly to have evolved.”
This is Ambulocetus, a real, transitional mammal, evolving into a whale, that lived about 50 million years ago. When shown of this mammal, creationists make up all sorts of empty ”now there’s another gap to fill” excuses as if they demand all animals to have complete lineages similar to that of what is shown in a human family tree. But even human family trees are incomplete in so many cases with missing and forgotten relatives nobody has ever seen, heard, or even knew of before. So why should the fossil record be different than that? Just like so many human family trees, the fossil record is incomplete, yet it doesn’t hold back on revealing to the world scores of transitional forms, including a snake with 2 legs, a half-shelled turtle, and Tiktaalik— transitional animals which even creationists would grudgingly acknowledge despite their constant denial of their existence. Creationists while denying the existence of transitional forms would say that all creatures are fully formed and designed by God. So are the transitional forms fully formed and designed by God who also modifies them through Natural Selection to help survive in the ever changing environment God put them in.
It is highly ironic to think creationists like Wieland is nowadays acknowledging the fact that life does change over time through natural selection, yet still deny the existence of transitional forms which is what is needed for life to change over time. Otherwise, if evolution is false, we would have seen animals and people behave like boring, monotonous cloning machines. But it’s not the case.
Wieland then talked about how the discovery of Basilosaurus Isis made in Wadi Hitan, Egypt in 2005 create great excitement because this fossil is more complete than the other Basilosaurus specimens unearthed in the past. B. Isis is shown to have tiny hind legs, showing scientists that this is an animal that have evolve from the likes of Ambulocetus and Pakicetus, another transitional whale. Stupidly, Wieland ask, “So was this a whale that still have the legs it once used for walking?” Dumb question. Those tiny hind legs are vestiges, features creationists would like to make you think they are fully formed and not “some useless leftover”. Even evolutionists knows that vestiges, like the tiny hind limbs are useful, as mentioned before. They also knew that this is a testimony to the fact that Basilosaurus ancestry can be traced to land animals that choose to return to the water to live. Over time, the hind legs shrunk, forming into vestiges too small to be used as paddling and walking, yet was probably used to clasp on to another whale while mating.
Then pages 60-63 shows Archelon, a giant sea turtle that lived 70-65 million years ago at the very end of the dinosaur age. yet, Wieland wants you to think it lived alongside humans as claimed on page 62 despite fossil evidence against such nonsense. Note on page 60 where Wieland states,
"Some scientists actually think it [Archelon] may have been a larger relative of the leatherback turtle. So it could well have been descended from the same original Genesis (created) kind."
Hardly any different than what evolutionists teach about common descent, eh? The original created kinds is the creationists' own version of "common ancestry". They teach the very same thing evolutionists teach when it comes to the fact that all life descend from one common ancestor. Yet they teach that it occurred at a fast rate over a few thousand years, let alone a few centuries, while their opponents teach that the process occurred at a slow rate over a period of millions of years. Creationists have nothing valid and credible to prove while evolutionists have plenty of credible evidence to prove their case. Creationists have a tree of life model highly similar to that of their opponents. However, in The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved!, Ken Ham claims the evolutionists' family tree are nothing more than a pile of firewood lying on the ground after the common ancestor is done away with. So is the creationists' own family tree after they done away the so-called "original creative kind" and leave behind logs and twigs that are destined for the burnt pile. So they are only kidding themselves when they say that evolutionists have no common ancestor, yet turn around and provide no evidence of any existence of an "original created kind" of their own. Creationists do teach evolution, yet disguises it as "speciation" and above all, have no shame in condemning those who accept evolution, yet turn around do exactly what they condemn others of believing in and accepting by saying things that conflict with one another, including the teaching of evolution to be a lie while turning around and teach very same thing they regard as a lie.
Another falsehood on page 60 tells about a claim involving giant kangaroos and emus being hunted by the ancestors of Australian natives who have allegedly left the Tower of Babel to arrive in Australia and encounter these 2 Australian megafaunas that were already present there. Yet, it doesn't explain how did the animals arrive in Australia after the Flood without invoking idiotic, groundless explanations for it, why do we find fossil remains of kangaroos, koalas, and other Australian animals only exclusively in Australia and none elsewhere, and finally, never mind the fact that the first Australian ancestors arrive on the island continent between 70,000-40,000 years ago.
Also, note the made-up idiot crank on the next page where Wieland claims that people would have been able to kill the Archelon in boats with spears and harpoons as it is coming up for air. Never mind that Archelon died out at the same time as the dinosaurs and there are no human remains found alongside Archelon remains let alone Archelon remains embedded with spearheads and "other evidence of human activity." Yet this doesn't stop Wieland from sinfully blaspheming God by putting Him to the test and wrongfully claimed that He "knew" from God's infallible record of history (that's really non-existent anywhere in the Bible) that people and Archelon must have lived on the same earth at the same time just like the leatherback turtles today, never mind the complete absence of humans and archelon fossils in and around one another in the fossil record.
Here, Wieland is putting God to the test, which we are not supposed to do as Christians, by saying that they lived on the same earth at the same time and hope and pray that God is really telling the truth in His [sic] infallible record of history despite the evidence pointing to the opposite. Using the Bible as a eye witness to a world at doesn't exist whatsoever is blatantly sacrilegious.
Next, pages 64-66 shows Liopleurodon, a marine reptile that lived between 165-150 million years ago in the Late Jurassic Period. Nothing much is noted except on page 66 where Wieland claims Liopleurodon along with many thousands of marine life became extinct due to volcanic upheavals associated with the Global Flood, never mind the complete lack of volcanic sediment in the area where Liopleurodon was found.
Transitional Forms vs. Created Kinds
Then on page 67, Wieland pauses to give out a small article entitled Science and the Past that explains how do the creationists "know" about Liopleurodon biting a flipper of a plesiosaur along with being responsible for leaving half-eaten remains of Ichthyosaurs behind. All of what creationists like Wieland does is look into real science books and magazine articles and nick-pick at any part of it that don't agree with their views. No creationist do any research at all lest they see something they fear would destroy their beliefs and lose their place in Heaven, never mind the Bible speaking nothing about losing salvation when one finds out that such notions about Earth being billions of years old and life developing from a common ancestor turns out to be absolutely true. All throughout the article, Wieland admits that creationists don't rely on anything that would destroy their "teddy bears," but instead be in denial and rely on the book, which speaks and explains nothing of what creationists claims to speak about, to interpret - albeit distort the fossil record in comparison with those who, in their eyes, start with a belief in evolution and rejecting the Bible (Define as any word uttered by a young earth creationist whether it comes from Ham or Prisoner #06452-017 aka Kent Hovind who claims that everything they said about thousands of years, dinosaurs living with humans, and the Global Flood is found in the Bible while there's not a single part in the Bible that says anything about it). In reality, the whole thing begin with the discoveries of factual evidence pointing to a world far older than 6,000 years and acknowledging God who reveals to them how He created everything in detail and how life change over time through Him. This whole thing was discovered by not atheists, but open-minded religious people, including Christians, who were not as hard-headed, hard-hearted, and stiff necked as young earth creationists are.
The rest of the article compares the "original kinds" that look a lot like its descendants with the "ancestor candidate" that looks different than its descendants. Both are claimed to have never been seen or have never been there to see them. But unlike the created kinds, these….
These are the animals creationists deny them to be transitional forms, saying that they're nothing more than [sic] "separate created kinds" that behave like living cloning machines, reproducing offspring exactly like their parents with little or no modifications in them. On the other hand, these separate created kinds are the ones responsible for reproducing offspring that will descend into horses, birds, and whales of today.
And here's an article from The Plesiosaur Directory site that explains the ancestry of Pliosaurs, like Liopleurodon and plesiosaurs based on credible evidence Wieland does not want you to know about.
All these in-between animals are enough to confirm the evidence for evolution and common descent to be factually true. And what about the "originals created kinds" creationists claimed to have allegedly exist according to the false "eyewitness" account in Genesis? Well creationists claimed to have never seen nor were they there at the time of creation to see them, yet they rely on the [sic] eyewitness account of Genesis in hopes that these creatures exist at one time. However, no credible evidence of the existence of these "hopeful monsters" has ever been found. It's evident that the created kinds don't really exist at all. If the Genesis account is a true eyewitness account, then we would have credible evidence supporting such existence of those created kinds that have descended into the variety of animals we see today. But, just like what creationists says about the transitional forms, none has ever been found. Thus, rendering Genesis as a false eyewitness account of a creation event 6,000 years ago that never occurred with created kinds that never existed. And that's sacrilegious to use God's Word to claim there was a young world with created kinds in them only to find that they never really existed to begin with.
Note Wieland's irony at the end of the article,
"Science is a wonderful tool, but we need to be aware of the different sorts of science and their limitations. Beliefs and biases make all the difference in how fact are interpreted [our way]." (Emphases in brackets)
And that's what young earth creationism is all about — beliefs, imaginations, biases, stupid lies, distortions, and deceit — all evil in every way.
The Blue Whale
Then pages 68-71 tells about the modern Blue Whale, the biggest mammal in the world. Other than the notion of it being a member of the fin whale family which may have all descended from an imaginary created kind, there's no creationist nonsense in this section to speak of.
And then, pages 72-74 tells about Dunkleosteus (also called Dinichthys), a huge armored headed fish that live 370-360 million years ago in the Devonian Period. Note the crank on page 73-74 in which Wieland explains how placoderms, like Dunkleosteus, died out in the alleged Flood,
"The Flood with its breakup of the 'fountains of the deep' for five months would have seen vast underwater earth movements and volcanic activity. This would release many toxic chemicals over vast areas. In addition, huge underwater mudslides we talked about on page 20 would have buried billions of fish."
That would kill all marine life forms, including coral, in less than 5 months. The continents would have crumbled into the sea instead of breaking apart to form the continents we see today if what Wieland claims to be the case. Plus, Dunkleosteus would have already been dead from indigestion and its flesh rotted away by the time sediment came along and bury the body. Remember, bone can last for many centuries, even thousands of years before being covered in sediment just as explained before.
And finally, the very last page, just before the index and the very last 3 pages containing young earth literature crap, just simply shows the same old falsehood of all animals being lovey dovey plant-eaters before the Fall. Here Wieland, like all creationists, teach that God gave animals features to allow them to attack, kill, and eat as well as defend itself from being eaten because He knew that they will use them in the Fallen World while being ignorant of the fact that what He actually did to them is set them all up for the Fall. What good is it then, if God wanted all to be peaceful plant-eaters and yet gave them the traits to eat meat and defend themselves from becoming eaten? Since when it is a sin for animals to have offensive and defensive traits? Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about animals sinning and the verses that talks about sin and death through Adam only applies to humans, not animals, not plants, not even earth and the universe themselves. If God wanted all animals to be peaceful plant-eaters, He would've never gave them the offensive and defensive traits that would eventually prompt God to punish them with a Flood for what He Himself have ordain them to have and do to begin with. That's setting the animal kingdom up for the Fall — ordaining animals to have the ability to do predation and defense themselves against predation, then turn around and punish them for what God Himself have ordained them to have and do (never mind the fact that animals are morally innocent beings who can't think and reason the way humans do) in order to survive, making God into a cruel, barbaric being who shamelessly set the animal kingdom, let alone Mankind, up for the Fall.
Other then a brief gospel proselytizing, that's it.That's all there is in the book. It's just like other creationists books filled with denials, falsehoods, condemnations, half-truths, deceit, the whole 9 yards with no references and no citations to every claim they made whatsoever. Especially to one of the falsehoods mentioned in the book which claims that the bodies, especially bones, can't be preserved unless they are rapidly buried in a catastrophic flood. Yet, creationists, like Wieland, just can't explain why do we find many instances of skeletons of people and animals being found gently buried, yet are known to be well preserved for over long periods of time.