whatchamean: I have to congratulate you. It's evident that you're a cut above the average creationist, who can't pretend that they might be wrong about what they already believe to be true for even a few moments. And the fact that you can at least ask questions instead of just insisting that your dogma must be correct is a sign of the willingness to think and to consider, which many creationists cannot do.
But your so-called "truth of the matter" is, frankly, not convincing, and engages in fallacious reasoning. The video you linked goes to some effort to try to cast doubt on the idea of whale evolution, but it does not do a very good job of it. For example, the narrator asks the question of why biologists are confident that whales evolved from land animals if they cannot agree on what particular land animal the whales might have evolved from. It is clear that the narrator intended to give the impression that if biologists could not even agree on what land animal whales might have evolved from, then the conclusion was not trustworthy. Except this is flat-out wrong. Science is not some monolithic dogma which every scientist must march in lockstep with; the fact that scientists can and do disagree on things helps keep the whole discipline of science healthy, instead of getting stratified and locked into place.
The clip of Dr. Gish commenting that he didn't know why biologists would call "that thing" a whale, because he has never seen a walking whale, is arguably the weakest point of the video. Of course whales do not walk - today
. But for him or anyone to imply that because whales do not walk today, they thus their long-dead precursors never have walked at any time in the past, is a combination of arrogance and ignorance that is hard to top. And then he states that biologists 'believe' it
because they want to believe it; meaning all those biologists are 'wrong' not because Dr. Gish demonstrated that it couldn't be a link in the chain, but because Dr. Gish says they're wrong.
So, after 'disproving' Ambulocetus (or rather, by showing that some scientists disagree that it was a direct precursor to modern whales), it goes on to show the 'discovery' by the film's producer that parts of the Rodhocetus fossil were missing, and gives a clip of Dr. Gingerich admitting that he didn't have the complete fossil and was speculating (which is first cut off by the narrator, then when he continues a bit later, displays an obvious edit). What a coup that must have been, to have a scientist admit to speculation on camera. Except that means nothing. Some of paleontology is necessarily speculation, to reconstruct incomplete skeletons and to try to put together a picture of a complete organism from just the bones. Sometimes that ends up in an incorrect assumption or guess. The point is not that Dr. Gingerich guessed on some details, it is that he was willing to go back and revise his speculations instead of dogmatically insisting that his original ideas had to be right.
Then the video goes on to make the claim that if the chart of whale evolution were to be redrawn to "eliminate inconsistencies", that there would be nothing left of it. This is presumably intended to show the presumed lack of evidence for whale evolution. What it actually shows is that the 'redrawing' is nothing more than an attempt to lawyer-out the actual evidence along the lines of, "this is a whale, these other things are clearly not, now that we've established that, go do something productive". That is not how science works. Science is about investigating things, not about dismissing them because they're not conclusive. If they're not conclusive, then the correct response is to look for more information, not to conclude that the whole idea is wrong.
Finally, the video concludes by trying to show that a four-legged land animal turning into a whale by natural selection (although it calls it "accidental change") is preposterous, by saying that there were too many changes for it to have happened by chance. This makes the usual mistake of assuming natural selection is random and accidental, when it is not. We can see evidence of this by looking at various different groups of humans, such as Eskimos who have developed thicker and better-distributed subcutaneous layers of fat to help protect them against the cold temperatures they live in. There is no 'accident' involved in a group, which lives in an area that is cold year-round, developing a trait that helps them resist the cold far better than someone who does not live there. Something like the evolution of land animals to whales is simply a longer stepwise process in which 'accident' plays little part. So the video's argument that all of the changes would have had to happen by accident is simply wrong.
The 'examples' the video gave to show the 'probability' of such changes happening by accident are no more accurate. They rely on very common misconceptions about how probability works, such as the idea that something has to happen all at once rather than happening over time. And the last sentence, that the "improbable odds" of evolution occurring through accidental changes has led "some scientists" to question the theory of evolution, is deceptive. It suggests that these scientists have been 'convinced' that evolution is flawed because of "improbable odds", which relies on the idea of evolution only happening by accident. As I explained just a moment ago, natural selection, the mechanism for evolution, is not dependent on "happy accidents". It can incorporate beneficial mutations, but it certainly does not rely on them. This is such a basic tenet of actual evolutionary theory that I question whether someone who tries to say that it is instead accidental even knows what they're talking about.
In short, the video might have been convincing to people who did not know any better, since it did present itself reasonably. But it depended not upon presenting actual facts to consider, but upon sowing seeds of doubt and trying to overturn established ideas without presenting anything substantial in its place.