* Early Earth Educators: RSR has been eager to discuss the origin of mankind with Brian and Virginia Norman, the educators with degrees in geology and theology who formed the Early Earth Educators creation outreached. Bob and the Normans discuss genetics and the Bible's teaching that all nations have descended from one blood in contrast with the racism inherent in Charles Darwin's worldview. With race-based turmoil fomenting in America, and after Covenant Media's Matt and Mercy Hasselblad described the overt Hinduism-based racism in India's cities and then recommended EEE, RSR's producer Larry Wolfe arranged this interview with the Normans. Brian and Viriginia also discuss rsr.org/canaan, rsr.org/flood, and Brian's novel "Early Earth Book 2" which Bob Enyart's son Michael is enjoying reading right now.

* Triple EEE on Facebook: Please Follow and Like Early Earth Educators on Facebook!

* Welcome to Real Science Radio: Hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss science to debunk evolution and to show the evidence for our creator God including from biology, geology, astronomy, and physics. (For example, mutations will give you bad legs long before you'd get good wings.) Not only do we get to debate Darwinists and atheists like Lawrence Krauss, AronRa, and Eugenie Scott, and easily take potshots from popular evolutionists like PZ Myers, Phil Plait, and Jerry Coyne, but we also occasionally interview the outstanding scientists who dare to challenge today's accepted creed that nothing created everything.

* July 14, 2015 Telethon Update: Thank you to everyone who has given toward our vital $30,000 telethon goal: we're now at $9,250! Please help if you can by clicking here to make a one-time donation, or to browse our store and make a purchase, or by signing up for a monthly donation, or by subscribing to one of our video or audio Bible-based monthly subscription services!

* A Science Hero's Work Corroborates the Young Earth: Real Science Radio's Bob Enyart and Fred Williams interview the scientist, Henry Richter, who led the team building America's first satellite Explorer 1. Dr. Richter (on left in this 1957 photo with JPL's Dr. George Ludwig) also held leadership roles in the launch of a number of the spacecraft that landed on the Moon, and even after he himself left the space program, his team completed the work on the scientific instrumentation for NASA's Mariner spacecraft which enabled it to explore Mercury, Venus and Mars! Dr. Richter earned a place in the history of scientific advancement. He is a biblical creationist and his efforts helped bring about the early and important discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt; he helped relieve the fear of too much dust on the moon (see below); and his work helped provide the benchmark from which NASA has learned that Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing in strength (see just below). Pleasing young-earthers and confounding old-earth planetary scientists, Mercury's magnetic field has decayed in strength eight percent from 1974 to 2011, not unlike Earth's field, which has lost ten percent of its energy over just the previous 150 years! Dr. Richter also made a brief comment regarding the bizarre moon landing hoax claim, which has been unnecessarily but fully refuted here (see below).

* Post-show Updates: including on the 2019 RCA Lifetime Achievement Award and the 2016 Hollywood's Hidden Figures:

* Email Correspondence on Hidden Figures
Subject: Hello Dr. Richter! Have you seen the movie "Hidden Figures" re: NASA in the 60s?
------------------------
From: Bob Enyart <Bob@rsr.org>
Date: Sun, Jan 15, 2017
To: "Dr. Henry L. Richter" <*****@*********.edu>
Henry, hello again! I pray you are well! If you go to the theater and see Hidden Figures, if you have any thoughts about it that you'd like to share, I'd love to talk with you about it! As I recall from rsr.org/richter the scan of the title pages of your book showed that it was published in 1966. (The movie begins at NASA's facility in Virginia in 1961, just fyi.)
- Bob Enyart
----------
From: "Dr. Henry L. Richter" <*****@*********.edu>
Date: Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:35 PM
To: Bob Enyart <Bob@rsr.org>
Cc: David Coppedge <*****@*********.com>
Hello Bob. It has been a long time since we have been to a theatre, but I will watch for it. I left NASA/JPL in 1960.
Thanks.
Henry 
----------
From: "Dr. Henry L. Richter" <*****@*********.edu>
Date: Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:35 PM
To: Bob Enyart <Bob@rsr.org>
Cc: David Coppedge <*****@*********.com>
Bob – we saw Hidden Figures tonight. Well done! Though this was after my time at NASA it was very realistic and believable. I remember vividly my first trip to Huntsville, with the "colored-only drinking fountains and restrooms." I was enraged by this climate and vowed to drink from colored fountains. But I was sternly warned against this by my colleagues. It was unbelievable.
Henry
p.s. We did not have computers in my day (JPL did have one analog computer) but the computing group did everything on Marchant and Friden calculators. SLOW!
----------
From: Bob Enyart <Bob@realscienceradio.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:33 PM
To: "Dr. Henry L. Richter" <*****@*********.edu>
Cc: David Coppedge <*****@*********.com>
Dr. Richter, I appreciate your opinion that it was "realistic and believable". That's so sad, but also, encouraging, that we've come so far and that NASA, as in the film, had a role in the civilizing of our race relations and mutual respect.
David, I pray that you're well. This article yahoo.com/news/spacecraft-survives-unprecedented-trip-between-saturn-rings-154244185.html mentions the planned final dive of Cassini in September. Can we pencil in an RSR interview for the week before? I'd love to discuss Saturn, the Cassini mission, and your recollections from JPL.
Thanks guys!
- Bob Enyart co-host
RealScienceRadio.com
1-800-8Enyart    rsr.org

* Thank you David Coppedge and Rob Carter: Real Science Radio thanks former JPL systems lead, David Coppedge, for arranging this historic interview for RSR. And we thank CMI's biologist Dr. Robert Carter for his great Henry Richter interview in the current issue of Creation magazine.

* Planet Mercury Leaves NASA Jaw-Dropping Shocked: Mercury's density is far beyond what evolutionary accretion could produce. From its pull on NASA's 1974 Mariner space probe, we learned of Mercury's great density, unachievable by the now falsified nebular hypothesis. So as they do with most of the planets, Big Bang proponents including theoretical physicists (with the emphasis on the theoretical, as in the RSR interview with Lawrence Krauss), appeal to catastrophism, whereby first Mercury formed in the traditional way claimed through the condensing swirling nebula (which Isaac Newton evaluated as impossible via gravity), but then a planet-level collision ejected all the light matter off of Mercury and left just the heavy stuff. Really.

* Magnetism: The claim that Mercury is four billion years old led BB proponents to predict that it would be a dead (so to speak), inert rock having no magnetic field. But in 1974, by the scientific leadership of American hero and scientist Dr. Henry Richter, NASA's Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury's magnetic field and provided hard data contradicting that fundamental evolutionary assumption. Then in 2008, NASA's Messenger craft measured the field's strength as significantly decreased, in only those few decades, which again contradicted their theory. Then in 2011, Messenger orbited the planet, and confirmed a startling (to old-earthers) 8% decrease since 1974. So, as with the Earth's rapidly decaying magnetic field, if Mercury were billions of years old, planet-wide features like it's magnetism would have reached stasis and not demonstrate such rapid change. See rsr.org/mercury for more!

* Weakening Magnetic Field and Carbon-14 Dating: As reported on rsr.org/14c, the University of Maryland geophysicist Daniel Lathrop stated that, "over the last 150 years or so, the Earth’s magnetic field has declined in strength about ten percent..." And as Dr. Richter stated on today's program, a stronger magnetic field thousands of years ago would result in production of fewer 14c atoms, which would in turn result in older-than-actual 14c dates, and that analysis from, again, the NASA scientist who launched America's first satellite, who oversaw development of the scientific equipment used on the first lunar missions, and who played an important role in the early discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt. By the way, Dr. Richter also wrote the NASA publication Space Measurements Survey: Instruments and Spacecraft covering the great period in the history of science from October 1957 to March 1965.

For today's show RSR recommends
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!

* Moon Dust Argument: See Dr. Walt Brown's brief summary and then his careful analysis of how much dust should be on a four-billion year old  moon. (A lot more than is there.) And see Terry Hurlbut's great article, The moon-dust argument might be valid after all. Dr. Brown's calculations are based on actual data and seriously challenges the Answers in Genesis warning that creationists should not use the moon dust argument. On February 13, 2014, Ken Ham blogged about his great debate with Bill Nye  and listed moon dust among "outdated or discredited" arguments. For years, Real Science Radio has been calling for AiG and other young-earth ministries (who have our love and respect) to either update their decades-old argument to show the public, if they can, where Dr. Brown's assembled data and mathematical calculations are in error, or they should remove moon dust from their "do not use" list. Or, preferably, they themselves should resume using this powerful argument for a young moon!

2015 AiG Update: In July we noticed that AiG has removed moon dust from their Arguments to Avoid article. As we've long said, we respect and love Ken Ham, all of AiG, their fabulous Creation Museum, and that we're praying for God's blessing on their enormously important Ark Encounter! So while we could call them and ask, like them (and like everyone), we're all so busy! :) So until we hear otherwise, we'll leave it at this: We're hoping that removing moon dust from AiG's Arguments to Avoid list was intentional.

* First an Atheist Caller Talks to NASA's Dr. Gold: Welcome to a special edition of Real Science Radio. An atheist caller, Forrest from Hawaii, had previously claimed that he had spoken to a NASA scientist Dr. Thomas Gold, who had personally told him that NASA had no concern about too much dust on the moon. Forrest wanted to use this information to discredit Bob Enyart's account of NASA designing the Lunar Module with large "feet" to prevent it from sinking into dust on the moon.

* Secondly Retired Engineer Bob Ball Reports His Research & Personal Recollection: Long-time friend of BEL and retired computer engineer Bob Ball from Indiana confirmed through his own research and independent recollection, NASA's serious, though unwarranted, concern in the 1960s that the moon would hold a tremendous amount of dust (because they believed it would have been collecting dust for billions of years, an age, and therefore, a concern, that young-earth creationists would dispute). Ball further recounted that this concern was promoted by NASA's own Dr. Thomas Gold himself, the very man our caller Forrest says that he had spoken to, who allegedly claimed that NASA had no such concern, and especially not when they designed the Lunar Lander.

* Atheist Forrest Calls Back: Forrest states that he did not accept Bob Ball's report that Dr. Thomas Gold was the very astronomer who most promoted the unnecessary concern over moon dust.

* Next Listener Darrell Birkey Quotes NASA: Birkey, of Goshen, Indiana called in to quote from NASA's own website, which states, "astronomer Thomas Gold asserted, however, that the apparently smooth areas on the moon were likely to be covered with a layer of fine dust several meters thick, raising the prospect that the lunar module might sink out of sight..."

So NASA's own historical account (it's own revisionist footnote notwithstanding) agrees with what Bob Enyart surmised on the air, refuting Forrest's first specific criticism of BEL. For NASA itself states, "Spacecraft engineers at Houston's Manned Spacecraft Center, meanwhile, in spite of their real need for this information [how much dust] in designing the lunar landing module, had to go ahead without it [without that data]." That is, NASA was designing the Lunar Module prior to its Ranger and Surveyor missions discovering that the depth of dust on the moon was negligible. So NASA gave the lunar lander large "feet" because they were pressed for time (to fulfill John Kennedy's dream of reaching the moon by the end of the decade) and so they designed the landing features so as to prevent the craft from sinking in dust.

* NASA's Burke & Richter Discuss Moon Dust: The Smithsonian Channel and Real Science Radio have aired interviews with leading NASA scientists documenting the moon dust concern.  Henry Richer corrected BEL's mistaken atheist caller (see above) who had been insisting that NASA never feared that the moon might be covered with meters of dust. However, Dr.Richter recalled for RSR the invalid but great concern, arising out of the old-earth worldview, that the Lunar Lander might sink out of site into dust that would have accumulated on the surface of the moon over its alleged billions of years. Additionally, this 3-minute audio excerpt, courtesy of the Smithsonian Channel's Space Voyages: Into the Unknown, presents another NASA scientist, James Burke, explaining that the Surveyor Mission proved that a vehicle could land on the Moon without sinking deep into the dust that evolutionary scientists feared may have been there. Dr. Burke was project manager for the Ranger missions (which preceded Surveyor), and Roger Launius, also heard on this audio clip, is the curator for the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. Determining how much dust had accumulated on the lunar surface was one of the primary goals of the Surveyor program which eventually landed seven robotic craft on the moon. As Burke said, "If Surveyor had sunk in out of sight, then of course there would have been a different course of events." For, contrary to biblical creationism, the evolutionary old-earth mindset had led NASA to fear that the moon may be covered in dust even perhaps dozens of feet deep. See more at rsr.org/nasa-feared-deep-moon-dust.

* Dishonorable Mention of Werner von Braun: Tragically, the creationist father of rocket science never apologized nor even acknowledged wrongdoing for making weapons for the NAZIs. (Source: Google.) It's easy to say and harder to do yet von Braun should have prefered death. Instead, he pursued his scientific dreams with the resources provided by Hitler. Dr. Richter in 2017 or so being interviewed on a small radio station was asked and answered that von Braun, NASA's founder, had apologized for collaborating with the NAZIs. After a private conversation with Henry, in his next radio interview somewhere in the U.S. northwest (which Bob phoned into as a caller after Henry had invited him to listen in), the RSR crew was thankful that when again asked about von Braun, Dr. Richter went out of his way to state that he knew of no public record of a von Braun apology.  

* RSR Answers Specific Moon Landing Hoax Claims (collected from the Conspiracy Theory program and elsewhere)
- Can't see stars in various photos: The bright foreground and dark background composition of such photos results in a photographic effect whereby dimmer objects, such as stars in the sky, do not appear.
- Craters on moon may actually be from Area 51: "Conspiracy Theory" aired prior to Google Earth displaying Area 51. Conspiracy theorists have not since not linked to, nor otherwise documented there, the alleged terrestrial moon landscapes.
- No engine noise: On Star Trek TV shows, there is a quiet hum from the engines during typical scenes that take place on the ship. However, the audio from the Lunar Lander is very quiet and an astronaut even mentioned how quiet it was. Sound waves don't propagate in space, so while on earth engine noise will bounce back off the air surrounding a car on the highway, that effect doesn't exist in space. The only engine noise would have been transferred through the craft's structure, which could certainly be audible, but NASA explains that the all important insulation on the craft would significantly dampen that sound.
- No crater in the dust from Lunar Module landings: Photos and videos don't show landing craters below modules, even though NASA artwork previously predicted such craters would result from blown away dust. Of course, the depth of any expected crater would originally be influenced by NASA's fear of deep dust. (See above and NASA feared deep dust on the moon.)
- Missing Lunar Module in photo: A photograph exists of a distinctive moonscape without the lunar module, and then another with the same moonscape that includes the lunar module in the photo. When the module blasts off, it leaves its base, so the first photo seems to have been taken prior to the astronauts landing on the moon. The answer lies in the hills of the moonscape being very far away and because there is no atmosphere on the moon, the image has great clarity giving the impression that the hills are nearby. Then, when the camera is moved just a hundred yards or so to one side and snaps a photo in the same direction, the Lander is no longer in the frame, but the background is hardly changed, because of its distance. Careful examination of the famous photos does show the parallax however. A YouTube video has a great example and actual photos showing that parallax.
- No exhaust plume on leaving moon: The Conspiracy Theory "documentary" claims that there was no exhaust and that the Lunar Module appears to have been lifted off its base by a cable. However the A11-FSOTM documentary shows the blast off with debris flying and the flag being thrown.

* Homosexual Marriage Update: DBC Announcement: Dear loved ones, with the horrific supreme court ruling attempting to force homosexual marriage on the entire country (the way they forced child killing on the country with Roe v. Wade), we will have an emergency showing on Sunday morning at 9:30 a.m. at Denver Bible Church of Ray Comfort's film Audacity. Part documentary, part movie, Audacity will teach millions what the Bible actually says about homosexuality. And for the worship service, which begins at 10:50 a.m., the sermon of course, and tragically, will be on how to protect our families from the wickedness flooding our land. And if you can, please publish this notice on your social media.

Denver Bible Church rejects the court’s immoral and perverse opinion on homosexual marriage. The creator Jesus Christ said that God made us “male and female at the beginning of creation” and God instituted marriage between a man and a woman. All governing officials at every level of government should reject and ignore any and every attempt, whether legislative, by popular vote, or judicial, to redefine marriage. Likewise, all governing officials should reject Roe v. Wade and any and all other attempts to repeal God’s enduring command, Thou shall not murder.

Grieving, yes, but with ultimate victory in Jesus Christ!

We Just Want To Be Left Alone: Right. "In the public square, Christianity and homosexuality are mutually exclusive. One or the other will be in the closet", said Bob Enyart. A homosexual replies: "No really, we just want to be left alone. Oh yeah, and you better bake us a cake. Or else. Or a pizza pie. And cookies. And send us flowers. And you better give me a haircut while I'm waiting. And take some photos. Or else. And forget your heterosexual student clubs and dating services, and as for your teachings on morality, we've decided to ban them. Oh yeah, and did we tell you? You're going to print us some t-shirts and then host our wedding! Yup. Even on your church property. And we want a parade, and you're going to provide security too." See more. Unfortunately.


Now, for the conclusion of Whale Month on RSR

* The Canonical Whale Evolution Story Falling Apart: Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart concludes this comprehensive series of interviews with filmmaker Carl Werner whose videotaped interviews with the discoverers of the "walking whales" have caused museums around the world to change their fossil exhibits. Dr. Werner reports on one of the most fascinating chapters in the history of science. For the imagined whale-like features of creatures like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus, one by one, are being falsified and their "whale features" are being withdrawn by "whale evolution experts" and even by the discoverers themselves, the teacher Philip Gingerich and his former student Hans Thewissen.

* RSR's List of Whale Problems: For the actual (growing) list, see below.

* Sending Werner's Work to the Experts: RSR would like to mail a copy of Dr. Werner's Evolution book and the companion video to Dr. Gingerich and Dr. Thewissen (and perhaps to the other whale experts referenced therein). If you would like to underwrite that task for $100 per expert (to pay for the materials, shipping, our researcher's time, follow-up, etc.), please call 800-8Enyart or consider donating online! Thank you!    

* Filmmaker's Bombshell Report -- Forged Whale Fossils: Dr. Werner interviewed the scientists who supplied the primary whale evolution "fossils" to the world's leading museums including the Smithsonian, Carnegie, American Museum of Natural History, NHM of London, NMNS of Tokyo, Melbourne Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, and the NHM of Paris. Gingerich now admits that Rodhocetus had no flippers and no fluked tail (and certainly no blowhole), so what millions of evolutionists believe regarding whale fossils is based on fabricated, and fully falsified, misinformation. Hear it, read the full press release, and see it for yourself below (rather than accepting the widespread Darwinist misinformation like about Rodhocetus from princeton.edu). 

* Today’s Resource: You'll just love Carl Werner's  Evolution: The Grand Experiment DVD and his Living Fossils DVD! Want something else? Just browse the Science Department in the KGOV store for the best of the best in creation books, debates, and videos, or just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

 
* Richard Dawkins Whale Tales: Click to Watch Richard Dawkins spout off on whale intermediates 

* RSR's List of Whale Evolution Problems: In the tradition of the beloved RSR List Shows, we hope the following information will be helpful to you. Throughout the month of June, we will be adding items to this list and Bob Enyart asks you to help us turn this into a comprehensive and succinct resource, so please don't hesitate to email Bob@rsr.org your suggestions for what should be included here:
- Ten thousand paleontologists over 150 years have failed to discover whale transitions 
- Two guys in a few decades discovered Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, Sinonyx and more  (see below)
- The teacher Dr. Philip Gingerich became famous for discovering Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, and other whale transitions
- The student Dr. Hans Thewissen became famous for discovering Ambulocetus
- Without limb or tail bones to justify his imagination, Gingerich drew flippers and a fluked tail onto Rodhocetus
- Gingerich admits on film to Dr. Carl Werner that additional fossils show Rodhocetus had four legs
- Gingerich admits that there is no evidence that Rodhocetus, a good runner, had a fluked tail
- Major museums begin to pull the famed Rodhocetus from their whale evolution displays
- Werner-aware articles like at Wikipedia either omit Rodhocetus or downgrade it to just one of the Protocetids
- Smaller-staffed sites like Francis Collins's BioLogos continue to showcase the completely misconstrued Rodhocetus
- Gingerich reconstructed a Pakicetus skull from fragments but now admits there was no indication of a blowhole
- After more bones were excavated, Pakicetus became a land animal but still kept its place as a whale transitional form
- Listing nine whale features, Thewissen, et al. conclude in Nature, "Pakicetids display none of these [whale] features"
- Since Gingerich and Thewissen, whales are now widely claimed to be the best fossil evidence for Darwinian evolution
- Real Science Radio often hears evolutionists use Rodhocetus and Pakicetus as evidence for evolution, as did AronRa
- Berkeley's Whale Evolution article says: "These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals."
- Leading evolutionists focusing on teeth, ear bones, ankles, mouth, or genes thus argue for a different land ancestor
- Since 1998, leading institutions argue whether whales evolved from animals like hyenas, cats, deer, wolves, or hippos
- Darwin focused on the wide-open mouth and predator behavior to claim that whales evolved from bears
- Dr. Gingerich explains that what "is similar between hoofed hyenas and the archaic whales are the teeth."
- Tokyo Institute of Sciences focused on genome similarity and concludes that whales evolved from a hippo-like species
- The whale evolution saga pits geneticists against anatomists against paleontologists
- Neo-Darwinism claims that evolution happens in the genes, yet unlike whales, hippos have plant-eating teeth
- Geneticist claims whales evolved from hippos but paleontologists say hippos evolved tens of millions of years too late
- The water-deposited geologic column's flood sorted fossils contain no hippo bones lower than whale bones
- If today's neo-Darwinian paradigm were true, then hippo gene similarity leaves zero fossil evidence for whale evolution
- Gingerich's "problem" with hippos is that "they are all plant eaters; [but] whales today are all carvinovres."
- Science: "the teeth of... mesonychids, such resemblance is sometimes overstated and... represents ... convergence"
- Though whales are among the "best" fossil evidence for evolution, experts disagree even on their land ancestor
- Thewissen reconstructed Ambulocetus' skull with a blowhole where no skull fragments existed to justify it
- The world's leading museums display a full Ambulocetus skull as though it had been found, including with a blowhole
- Smithsonian and other Darwinist artists added tiny ears reminiscent of whales without fossil evidence to support them
- Whale eyes typically line up with the upper teeth so Gingerich doubts Ambulocetus because its eyes are atop its head
- Thewissen admits in Werner's film that a major claim for Ambulocetus, a "sigmoid process" ear bone, is questionable 
- Whale evolution believer and expert Dr. Berta nonetheless refers to Thewissen's "purported whale characters"
- The "sigmoid process" is "questionable" and only "purported" because it doesn't look like that diagnostic whale trait
- The other "purported" Ambulocetus "whale" features are consistent with land animals but not with whale features
- Gingerich found Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, Synonyx and also Maiacetus ("mother whale") and Artiocetus!
- So the dynamic duo found Rodhocetus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Synonyx, Maiacetus, Artiocetus, and  __________?
- The whale evolution cottage industry is run like a family business with proprietors who cannot be trusted
- (Feel free to send suggestions for additions to this RSR List to Bob@rsr.org)

While maintaining his evolutionary political correctness, Wayne Carley, the president of the Nat'l Association of Biology Teachers nonetheless observed, "The very day I viewed the segment “Great Transformations," wherein P. D. Gingerich firmly stated that whales evolved from wolf-like carnivores, he and several colleagues published a paper in Science (293: 2239) showing that, in fact, whales evolved from ancestral artiodactyls." P.C. aside though, 100,000 U.S. professors think intelligent design is a significant scientific alternative to Darwinism, half-a-million U.S. medical doctors say that God brought about humans, and 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class.

Credit: Just as we credit RSR's List of Fresh Fossils and our rsr.org/dinosaur-soft-tissue#supplement to Brian Thomas over at the Institute for Creation Research, so too we credit Dr. Carl Werner for his startling exposé of the fraudulent whale transitional fossils that enabled us to produce this latest RSR List. Thank you Brian and thank you Carl!" - Bob Enyart & Fred Williams

Bob Enyart talks about the foundations of economics, about thought experiments, about what what is money, about what makes the economy function, and about God's suggestion: Thou shall not steal. 

* The Canonical Whale Evolution Story Falling Apart: Bob Enyart continues a comprehensive series of interviews with filmmaker Carl Werner whose videotaped interviews with the discoverers of the "walking whales" have caused museums around the world to change their fossil exhibits. Dr. Werner reports on one of the most fascinating chapters in the history of science. For the imagined whale-like features of creatures like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus, one by one, are being falsified and their "whale features" are being withdrawn by "whale evolution experts" and even by the discoverers themselves, the teacher Philip Gingerich and his former student Hans Thewissen.

* RSR's List of Whale Problems: For the actual (growing) list, see below. 

* Filmmaker's Bombshell Report -- Forged Whale Fossils: Dr. Werner interviewed the scientists who supplied the primary whale evolution "fossils" to the world's leading museums including the Smithsonian, Carnegie, American Museum of Natural History, NHM of London, NMNS of Tokyo, Melbourne Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, and the NHM of Paris. Gingerich now admits that Rodhocetus had no flippers and no fluked tail (and certainly no blowhole), so what millions of evolutionists believe regarding whale fossils is based on fabricated, and fully falsified, misinformation. Hear it, read the full press release, and see it for yourself below (rather than accepting the widespread Darwinist misinformation like about Rodhocetus from princeton.edu). 

* Today’s Resource: You'll just love Carl Werner's  Evolution: The Grand Experiment DVD and his Living Fossils DVD! Want something else? Just browse the Science Department in the KGOV store for the best of the best in creation books, debates, and videos, or just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

 
* Richard Dawkins Whale Tales: Click to Watch Richard Dawkins spout off on whale intermediates :

* RSR's List of Whale Evolution Problems: In the tradition of the beloved RSR List Shows, we hope the following information will be helpful to you. Throughout the month of June, we will be adding items to this list and Bob Enyart asks you to help us turn this into a comprehensive and succinct resource, so please don't hesitate to email Bob@rsr.org your suggestions for what should be included here:

- Ten thousand paleontologists over 150 years have failed to discover whale transitions 
- Two guys in a few decades discovered Rodhocetus,Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, and ___________ (fill in the blank).
- The teacher Dr. Philip Gingerich became famous for discovering Rodhocetus and Pakicetus
- The student Dr. Hans Thewissen became famous for discovering Ambulocetus
- Without limb or tail bones to justify his imagination, Gingerich drew flippers and a fluked tail onto Rodhocetus
- Gingerich admits on film to Dr. Carl Werner that additional fossils show Rodhocetus had four legs
- Gingerich admits that there is no evidence that Rodhocetus, a good runner, had a fluked tail
- Major museums begin to pull the famed Rodhocetus from their whale evolution displays
- Werner-aware articles like at Wikipedia either omitRodhocetus or downgrade it to just one of the Protocetids
- Smaller-staffed sites like Francis Collins's BioLogoscontinue to showcase the completely misconstruedRodhocetus
- Gingerich reconstructed a Pakicetus skull from fragments but now admits there was no indication of a blowhole  
- Listing nine whale features, Thewissen, et al. conclude inNature, "Pakicetids display none of these [whale] features"
- Since Gingerich and Thewissen, whales are now widely claimed to be the best fossil evidence for Darwinian evolution
- Real Science Radio often hears evolutionists useRodhocetus and Pakicetus as evidence for evolution, as did AronRa
- Leading evolutionists focusing on teeth, or earbones, or mouth, or genes each thus argue for a different land ancestor
- Since 1998, leading institutions argue whether whales evolved from animals like hyenas, cats, deer, wolves, or hippos
- Darwin focused on the wide-open mouth and predator behavior to claim that whales evolved from bears
- Dr. Gingerich expalins that what "is similar between hoofed hyenas and the archaic whales are the teeth."
- Tokyo Institute of Sciences focused on genome similarity and concludes that whales evolved from a hippo-like species
- The whale evolution saga pits geneticists against anatomists against paleontologists
- Neo-Darwinism claims that evolution happens in the genes, yet unlike whales, hippos have plant-eating teeth
- Geneticist claims whales evolved from hippos but paleontologists say hippos evolved tens of millions of years too late
- The water-deposited geologic column's flood sorted fossils contain no hippo bones lower than whale bones
- If today's neo-Darwinian paradigm were true, then hippo gene similarity leaves zero fossil evidence for whale evolution
- Gingerich's "problem" with hippos is that "they are all plant eaters; [but] whales today are all carvinovres."
- Though whales are among the "best" fossil evidence for evolution, experts disagree even on their land ancestor
- Thewissen reconstructed Ambulocetus' skull with a blowhole where no skull fragments existed to justify it
- The world's leading museums display a full Ambulocetusskull as though it had been found, including with a blowhole
- Smithsonian and other Darwinist artists added tiny ears reminiscent of whales without fossil evidence to support them
- Whale eyes typically line up with the upper teeth so Gingerich doubts Ambulocetus because its eyes are atop its head
- Thewissen admits in Werner's film that a major claim forAmbulocetus, a "sigmoid process" ear bone, is questionable 
- Whale evolution believer and expert Dr. Berta nonetheless refers to Thewissen's "purported whale characters"
- The "sigmoid process" is "questionable" and only "purported" because it doesn't look like that diagnostic whale trait
- The other "purported" Ambulocetus "whale" features are consistent with land animals but not with whale features

- See more at Part 1 of RSR's 2015 Whale Month (and feel free to send suggestions to Bob@rsr.org)

Credit: "Just as we credit RSR's List of Fresh Fossils and our rsr.org/dinosaur-soft-tissue#supplement to Brian Thomas over at the Institute for Creation Research, so too we credit Dr. Carl Werner for his startling exposé of the fraudulent whale tranistional fossils that enabled us to produce this latest RSR List. Thank you Brian and thank you Carl!" - Bob Enyart & Fred Williams

* The Canonical Whale Evolution Story Falling Apart: Bob Enyart continues a comprehensive series of interviews with filmmaker Carl Werner whose videotaped interviews with the discoverers of the "walking whales" have caused museums around the world to change their fossil exhibits. Dr. Werner reports on one of the most fascinating chapters in the history of science. For the imagined whale-like features of creatures like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus, one by one, are being falsified and their "whale features" are being withdrawn by "whale evolution experts" and even by the discoverers themselves, the teacher Philip Gingerich and his former student Hans Thewissen.

* RSR's List of Whale Problems: For the actual (growing) list, see below. 

* Filmmaker's Bombshell Report -- Forged Whale Fossils: Dr. Werner interviewed the scientists who supplied the primary whale evolution "fossils" to the world's leading museums including the Smithsonian, Carnegie, American Museum of Natural History, NHM of London, NMNS of Tokyo, Melbourne Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, and the NHM of Paris. Gingerich now admits that Rodhocetus had no flippers and no fluked tail (and certainly no blowhole), so what millions of evolutionists believe regarding whale fossils is based on fabricated, and fully falsified, misinformation. Hear it, read the full press release, and see it for yourself below (rather than accepting the widespread Darwinist misinformation like about Rodhocetus from princeton.edu). 

* Today’s Resource: You'll just love Carl Werner's  Evolution: The Grand Experiment DVD and his Living Fossils DVD! Want something else? Just browse the Science Department in the KGOV store for the best of the best in creation books, debates, and videos, or just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

 
* Richard Dawkins Whale Tales: Click to Watch Richard Dawkins spout off on whale intermediates :

* RSR's List of Whale Evolution Problems: In the tradition of the beloved RSR List Shows, we hope the following information will be helpful to you. Throughout the month of June, we will be adding items to this list and Bob Enyart asks you to help us turn this into a comprehensive and succinct resource, so please don't hesitate to email Bob@rsr.org your suggestions for what should be included here:
- Ten thousand paleontologists have failed to discover whale transitions while looking for 150 years 
- Two guys in a few decades discovered Rodhocetus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, and _________ (fill in the blank).
- The teacher Dr. Philip Gingerich discovered Rodhocetus and Pakicetus
- The student Dr. Hans Thwissen discovered Ambulocetus
- Without bones to justify his imagination, Gingerich drew flippers and a fluked tail onto Rodhocetus
- Gingerich admits on film to Dr. Carl Werner that additional fossils show Rodhocetus had four legs
- Gingerich admits that there is no evidence that Rodhocetus, a good runner, had a fluked tail
- Major museums begin to pull the famed Rodhocetus from their whale evolution displays
- Werner-aware articles like at Wikipedia either omit Rodhocetus or downgrade it to just one of the Protocetids
- Smaller-staffed sites like Francis Collins's BioLogos continue to showcase the completely misconstrued Rodhocetus
- See more at Part 1 of RSR's 2015 Whale Month (and feel free to send suggestions to Bob@rsr.org)
Credit: "Just as we credit RSR's List of Fresh Fossils and our rsr.org/dinosaur-soft-tissue#supplement to Brian Thomas over at the Institute for Creation Research, so too we credit Dr. Carl Werner for his startling exposé of the fraudulent whale tranistional fossils that enabled us to produce this latest RSR List. Thank you Brian and thank you Carl!" - Bob Enyart & Fred Williams

* Dinosaur Soft Tissue is COMMON: Today's special edition of Real Science Radio reports on the latest astounding recovery of actual dinosaur soft tissue (See right, the false-color photograph of actual dinosaur collagen!) David Coppedge, former ground computer administrator for NASA's Cassini Saturn mission, joins Bob Enyart to discuss this week's reports in the journals Nature and Science of more, and more, and more red blood cells soft tissue being discovered in dinosaur bones. As at rsr.org/predictions, this confirms Bob's and Fred Williams' 2014 creation science prediction that dinosaur soft tissue will be found not only in rare circumstances, but rather easily, i.e., when looked for. As reported by Coppedge at his important Creation Evolution Headlines website at crev.info, via the journal Science: "this week's issue of Nature Communications backs up previous, controversial reports of such structures in dinosaur bones. It also suggests that soft tissue preservation may be more common than anyone had guessed. 'It’s encouraging,' especially because the proteins were found in what appear to be the most unremarkable, ordinary bones..."

* From rsr.org/creation-science-predictions: RSR confidently predicted the very OPPOSITE of what the science journals had claimed! Every old-earth scientist and every media outlet and scientific journal that addressed the issue claimed that only in very rare circumstances has dinosaur tissue survived till the present. But on February 21, 2014 we predicted on our regular Real Science Radio broadcast and in the written show summary that dinosaur soft tissue was not rare but could be found easily. Here's what we predicted, and the confirmation notice:    

Dinosaur soft tissue will be found not only in rare circumstances, but rather easily, i.e., when looked for.
CONFIRMED in May 2015! From the world's leading journal, Nature, and at crev.info as reported as reported in Science, America's leading journal:Signs of ancient cells and proteins found in dinosaur fossils, "this week's issue of Nature Communications backs up previous, controversial reports of such structures in dinosaur bones. It also suggests that soft tissue preservation may be more common than anyone had guessed. 'It’s encouraging,' especially because the proteins were found in what appear to be the most unremarkable, ordinary bones, says Matthew Collins, an archaeologist and biochemist at the University of York in the United Kingdom."

* Rebutting the Canonical Whale Evolution Story: [Updated Dec. 11, 2019] Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart begins a comprehensive series of interviews with filmmaker Carl Werner. Dr. Werner's videotaped interviews with the discoverers of the "walking whales" have caused museums around the world to change their fossil exhibits. Dr. Werner reports on one of the most fascinating chapters in the history of science. For the imagined whale-like features of creatures like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus, one by one, are being falsified. Their "whale features" are being withdrawn by "whale evolution experts" and even by the discoverers. Two guys, from the same office, working just feet apart from each other, a teacher and his graduate student, Philip Gingerich and his student Hans Thewissen, were responsible for most of the now-failing whale story.

* RSR's List of Whale Evolution Problems: For the list itself, see below.

* Filmmaker's Bombshell Report -- Forged Whale Fossils: Dr. Werner interviewed the scientists who supplied the primary whale evolution "fossils" to the world's leading museums including the Smithsonian, Carnegie, American Museum of Natural History, NHM of London, NMNS of Tokyo, Melbourne Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, and the NHM of Paris. Gingerich now admits that Rodhocetus had no flippers and no fluked tail (and certainly no blowhole), so what millions of evolutionists believe regarding whale fossils is based on fabricated, and fully falsified, misinformation. Hear it, read the full press release, and see it for yourself below (rather than accepting the widespread Darwinist misinformation like about Rodhocetus from princeton.edu).

* Today’s Resource: You'll just love Carl Werner's  Evolution: The Grand Experiment DVD and his Living Fossils DVD! Want something else? Just browse the Science Department in the KGOV store for the best of the best in creation books, debates, and videos, or just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

* See this Gingerich Rodhocetus excerpt from Grand Experiment: The teacher and the student. First see this two-minute excerpt with Werner's interview with Rodhocetus discoverer Dr. Phillip Gingerich and then see the brief excerpt with Gingerich's pupil Dr. Hans Thewissen.

And now Thewissen:

* Whales are "Best" Fossil Evidence for Evolution: The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History's Curator Emeritus, the American Naturalist, the Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, a Univ. of London Paleontologist, etc. are among the many evolutionists presenting whales as the best fossil evidence for Darwinian evolution. (Click for quotes & references.) Richard Dawkins says that "one of the best examples" of intermediate fossils "is whales."

* RSR's List of Whale Evolution Problems: In the tradition of the beloved RSR List Shows, we hope the following will be helpful to you as a comprehensive yet succinct resource. (For the documentation, see Dr. Werner's videos and books and please email Bob@rsr.org your suggestions for other items to include.):
- Whales and bats share unique DNA sequences in 200 genes yet without a similar common ancestor
- The evolutionary tree based on the gene Prestin shows bats and whales "together rather than with their... evolutionary cousins" 
- Ten thousand paleontologists over 150 years failed to discover whale transitions 
- Two guys in a few decades discovered Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, Sinonyx and more  (see below)
- The teacher Dr. Philip Gingerich became famous for discovering Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, and other whale transitions
- The student of Gingerich, Dr. Hans Thewissen, became famous for discovering Ambulocetus
- Without limb or tail bones to justify his imagination, Gingerich drew flippers and a fluked tail onto Rodhocetus
- San Diego State's whale evolution expert Dr. Berta: "Rodhocetus [used] its fluked tail for propulsion through water..."
- Gingerich admits on film to Dr. Carl Werner that additional fossils show Rodhocetus had four legs
- Lacking evidence and left with only contrary evidence, Gingerich now believes that Rodhocetus did not have a fluked tail
- Major museums begin to pull the famed Rodhocetus from their whale evolution displays
- Werner-aware articles like at Wikipedia either omit Rodhocetus or downgrade it to just one of the Protocetids
- Smaller-staffed sites like Francis Collins' BioLogos continue to showcase the completely misconstrued Rodhocetus
- Gingerich reconstructed a Pakicetus skull from fragments but now admits there was no indication of a blowhole
- After more bones were excavated, Pakicetus became a land animal but still kept its place as a whale transitional form
- Listing nine whale features, Thewissen, et al. conclude in Nature, "Pakicetids display none of these [whale] features"
- Since Gingerich and Thewissen, whales are now widely claimed to be the best fossil evidence for Darwinian evolution
- Real Science Radio often hears evolutionists, like AronRa, use Rodhocetus and Pakicetus as evidence for evolution
- Berkeley's Whale Evolution article says: "These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals."
- Leading evolutionists focusing on teeth, ear bones, ankles, mouth, or genes thus argue for a different land ancestor
- Since 1998, leading institutions argue whether whales evolved from animals like hyenas, cats, deer, wolves, or hippos
- Darwin focused on the wide-open mouth and predator behavior to claim that whales evolved from bears
- Dr. Gingerich explains that what "is similar between hoofed hyenas and the archaic whales are the teeth."
- Tokyo Institute of Sciences focused on genome similarity and concludes that whales evolved from a hippo-like species
- The whale evolution saga pits geneticists against anatomists against paleontologists

Evolutionists change their selection of what evidence they use to show 'lineage', from DNA to fossils to genes to body plans to teeth to many specific anatomical features to proteins to behavior to developmental similarities to habitat to RNA, etc. and to a combination of such. Darwinism is an entire endeavor based on selection bias, a kind of logical fallacy. By anti-science they arbitrarily select evidence that best matches whichever evolutionary story is currently preferred." - rsr.org/selection-bias

- Neo-Darwinism claims that evolution happens in the genes, yet unlike whales, hippos have plant-eating teeth
- Geneticist claims whales evolved from hippos but paleontologists say hippos evolved tens of millions of years too late
- Howard University's whale fossil expert Prof. Daryl Domning: "this is nonsense... Hippos were very late on the scene"
- The hippo/whale jam is one part of a system-wide pattern called Evolution's Big Squeeze
- The water-deposited geologic column's flood-sorted fossils reveal no hippo bones lower than whale bones
- If today's neo-Darwinian paradigm were true, then hippo gene similarity leaves zero fossil evidence for whale evolution
- Gingerich's "problem" with hippos is that "they are all plant eaters; [but] whales today are all carnivores."
- Science: "the teeth of... mesonychids, such resemblance is sometimes overstated and... represents ... convergence"
- Though whales are among the "best" fossil evidence for evolution, experts disagree even on their land ancestor
- Thewissen reconstructed Ambulocetus' skull with a blowhole where no skull fragments existed to justify it
- The world's leading museums display a full Ambulocetus skull as though it had been found, including with a blowhole
- Smithsonian and other Darwinist artists added tiny ears reminiscent of whales without fossil evidence to support them
- Whale eyes typically line up with the upper teeth so Gingerich doubts Ambulocetus because its eyes are atop its head
- Thewissen admits in Werner's film that a major claim for Ambulocetus, a "sigmoid process" ear bone, is questionable
- Whale evolution believer and expert Dr. Berta regarding Ambulocetus refers to its "purported whale characters"
- The "sigmoid process" is "questionable" and only "purported" because it doesn't look like that diagnostic whale trait
- The other "purported" Ambulocetus "whale" features are consistent with land animals but not with whale features
- Gingerich found Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, Synonyx and also Maiacetus ("mother whale") and Artiocetus!
- So the dynamic duo found Rodhocetus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Synonyx, Maiacetus, Artiocetus, and  __________?
- The whale evolution cottage industry is run like a family business with proprietors who cannot be trusted
- The evolutionary lineage of the previously-believed-extinct pygmy whale is whatever researchers want it to be
- Dr. Jerry Bergman presents anatomical evidence against the claimed whale vestiges of leg and pelvic bones
- Timewise, whale "evolution" is being crushed in the industry-wide "big squeeze" as fossil finds continue to compress any time available for evolution. To not violate its own plot, the Darwinist story doesn't start animals evolving back into the sea until the cast includes land animals suitable to undertake the legendary journey. The recent excavation of whale fossils on an island of the Antarctic Peninsula further compresses the already absurdly fast 10 million years to allegedly evolve from the land back to the sea, down to as little as one million years, by this assessment based on various techniques that produced various published dates in 2016.
- More to come in 2020 (and feel free to send suggestions to Bob@rsr.org)

While maintaining his evolutionary political correctness, Wayne Carley, the president of the Nat'l Association of Biology Teachers nonetheless observed, "The very day I viewed the segment “Great Transformations," wherein P. D. Gingerich firmly stated that whales evolved from wolf-like carnivores, he and several colleagues published a paper in Science (293: 2239) showing that, in fact, whales evolved from ancestral artiodactyls." P.C. aside though, 100,000 U.S. professors think intelligent design is a significant scientific alternative to Darwinism, half-a-million U.S. medical doctors say that God brought about humans, and 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class.

Credit: "Just as we credit RSR's List of Fresh Fossils and our rsr.org/dino-tissue#supplement to Brian Thomas over at the Institute for Creation Research, so too we credit Dr. Carl Werner for his startling exposé of the fraudulent whale transitional fossils that enabled us to produce this latest RSR List. Thank you Brian and thank you Carl!" - Bob Enyart & Fred Williams

* Asking Travis Barlock to Retract Rodhocetus Claim: Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart is asking recent DU biology grad Travis Barlock to retract a specific claim he made about evidence for evolution during a debate with Bill Jack at the University of Denver. On today's program, courtesy of filmmaker Dr. Carl Werner, hear the Rodhocetus discoverer Phil Gingerich admit that the fossil never showed evidence of whale flippers nor of a fluked tail. And now that they have recovered its front legs, Gingerich admits that Rodhocetus did not have flippers, and that therefore, the whale's tale that he imagined was not valid. In a discussion with Enyart after the debate, which you can see in the brief YouTube video below), Barlock said that if he could confirm this information, he would stop using this claim. Bob Enyart Live is now calling on Travis to make good on that commitment. And hear the audio from that post-debate discussion on today's program for questions raised about Barlock's other evolution claims.

* Inviting DU Evolutionists to Enjoy:
RSR's List of Scholars Doubting Darwin
List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit
List of Shocked Evolutionists
List of Missing Transitional Fossils
List of Carbon 14 Everywhere it Shouldn't Be
List of Dinosaur Soft Tissue Journal Papers
List of Fresh Fossils
RSR's List of Not So Old Things