Dr Batten, again sorry for whatever hullabaloo inadvertently stirred up.
reconstruction but there was no evidence for them (no fossil evidence).
I came to the conclusion that the whale evolution question is logically sound by looking at more intermediates (dorudon atrox and basiliorus) and the assigned dates, as well as viewing the original fossils of some of them.
"To Biblical Literalism, sure, but not to mature faith." Our approach to the Bible is not literalism; see Should Genesis be taken literally?
However, by the evolutionists' own dates the whale evolution story is in trouble because of the dating of a true whale before any of the supposed transitional forms. Regarding the title; I agonized over that and originally had 'Whale evolution in question'.
However, 'fraud' is certainly justified for those who continue to use this material as evidence for whale evolution, especially museums and textbooks that use the now superceded reconstructions.
Since you have such a mature faith, maybe you would like to answer these questions?
If you , evolution, with its hundreds of millions of years of death and suffering before Adam sinned, undermines everything that the Bible teaches that relates to salvation in Jesus Christ. To the two Johns that seem to have issue with me, Actually, jellyfish fossilise in a remarkably different manner.