The unearthing of whale skeletons in a desert ignites a debate of creationism versus evolution.

Scientists say this discovery gives them a glimpse of ancient sea life. One paleontologist said, "The fossils are exceptionally well preserved and quite complete--a rare combination in paleontology and one that will likely shed light on many facets of the . . . ecology and evolution of these extinct species."





Source / Alternative link

Paleontologists in Chile have made a surprising discovery in the desert. Scientists uncovered what appears to be a massive graveyard of whale bones in Copiapo, more than a half-mile from the ocean.

More than 80 whales, including 25 complete skeletons, were found in one of the driest deserts in the world. There is currently a construction project to widen the highway near the Atacama Desert, where the bones were found. Scientists believe the bones could be between 2 million and 7 million years old.

reply to post by Daedal


Which way to the debate?

Originally posted by jcord
reply to post by Daedal

 

Which way to the debate?

Looking for links and more info..

Call me a cynic, but debating with creationists seems a big waste of time. You may as well argue with a wall.

It may be a tremendous find for scientist but me, meh, a 1/2 mile from the ocean isn't far, especially when we're talking about 2 to 7 million years. There are many explainations of how this may have occured.

I don't see a creationist argument at all. These are extinct prehistoric whales. The biblical flood supposedly occured roughy. 5 to 6,000 years ago. Even if it did really happen, which there is no evidence to support that the entire planet was covered by water during that event, floods don't kill whales. All the preflood whales were, what, all in one place for a party or something, and got trapped and the whole species went extinct?

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Call me a cynic, but debating with creationists seems a big waste of time. You may as well argue with a wall.

The feeling is mutual.

reply to post by Daedal

I have walked in the Himalayas and found ammonites, fossils of spiral-shelled sea creatures, just below the snow line. They are quite common. Children sell them to tourists in Kathmandu.

In the Mustang valley which lies between Tibet and the Annapurnas, I saw the folds and creases of what was once an ancient ocean floor, visible more than ten thousand feet above sea level and about as far from the nearest beach as it is possible to be anywhere on this planet.

The Earth’s surface is constantly changing, rising and falling with the motion of her tectonic plates upon the underlying mantle. This is hardly news; thanks to the work of the pioneering geologist Charles Lyell, Lord Tennyson already knew about it in 1849:

There rolls the deep where grew the tree.
O earth, what changes hast thou seen!
There where the long street roars, hath been
The stillness of the central sea.

The hills are shadows, and they flow
From form to form, and nothing stands;
They melt like mist, the solid lands,
Like clouds they shape themselves and go.

– In Memoriam by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

reply to post by FOXMULDER147

OK cynic, debating creationist is important regardless of their def tone it still serves to expose the ultimate lie.

reply to post by Daedal

Been done at least twice on these boards in the last 48 hours: here (the main one) and here (the one that got shut down in favor of the other one.

reply to post by Astyanax


Well said, i raised the point about ammonites in a similar thread yesterday, Also 2 - 7 million years is plenty of time in geological terms for some serious changes - somewhere between 20-30 million years ago the UK was south of the Equator. Therefore, it is entirely possible that in 2-7 million years, land has risen enough to escape the sea that is not that far away......

I am a Christian an I believe God created the Earth. I do not adhere to the notion the Earth is only 6000 years old.... I do believe the world described in the Bible was created in 6 days. However, that is the present world or Earth Age.

I also believe that there was a previous Earth Age.... mentioned in Jeremiah and alludud to by Peter... that ended with a cataclysmic flood where the Earth was "void and without form." That is where Genesis picks up...

All that being said... the whale fossils create no controversy...the merely support science that says oceans rise and fall... mountains rise and fall...and the geological contours of the Earth are ever changing.

This didn't ignite any debate about evolution or creationism at all. It has nothing to do with anything. Tectonic plates constantly recycle the earth's crust and move it, which is why sea fossils are found on land. This was also already posted twice.

I'm a creationists! Ya, bring on the debate. I'll use any ammo I can get. If an evo gets a hold of a two headed cow they scream evolution so give us our due. Proof enough to start teaching creationism.

From what I have experienced, any mysterious archaeological find ends up being fodder for creationism theory. I think it neatly illustrates the creationist mindset: If nobody has an explanation for it, then it's a point for God. I've always felt that if there is a creator, you're going to find his signature in science... I think we can all agree that science is a real thing! I definitely do not believe that He's going to prove himself through the (temporary) absence of logical scientific explanation.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Well said, i raised the point about ammonites in a similar thread yesterday, Also 2 - 7 million years is plenty of time in geological terms for some serious changes - somewhere between 20-30 million years ago the UK was south of the Equator. Therefore, it is entirely possible that in 2-7 million years, land has risen enough to escape the sea that is not that far away......

wait...wait back up the truck there for a min but did you say --

Therefore, it is entirely possible that in 2-7 million years, land has risen enough to escape the sea that is not that far away......

so the ammonites, fossils of spiral-shelled sea creatures that Astyanax found just below the snow line
in the Himalayas are how old again?

just curious.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Well said, i raised the point about ammonites in a similar thread yesterday, Also 2 - 7 million years is plenty of time in geological terms for some serious changes - somewhere between 20-30 million years ago the UK was south of the Equator. Therefore, it is entirely possible that in 2-7 million years, land has risen enough to escape the sea that is not that far away......

wait...wait back up the truck there for a min but did you say --

Therefore, it is entirely possible that in 2-7 million years, land has risen enough to escape the sea that is not that far away......

so the ammonites, fossils of spiral-shelled sea creatures that Astyanax found just below the snow line
in the Himalayas are how old again?

just curious.

Haha no, the point he was making was that there are fossils of sea creatures in the himalayas. The point i was making is that the whales carcasses found in the desert in Chile are not all that from present coastlines, close enough to have been under or connected to the sea in the past 2 to 7 million years.

Originally posted by edmc^2
just curious.

A curious creationist. Isn't that an oxymoron?

Originally posted by FidelityMusic

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Call me a cynic, but debating with creationists seems a big waste of time. You may as well argue with a wall.

The feeling is mutual.

The point being that the scientific method is about inquiry whereas creationism isn't.
The absolutes dealt with by science are demonstrable, whilst creationism is pure absolutism derived from archaic texts, written, compiled and edited by men a long time ago in a hot place far away from where you are now.

Haha no, the point he was making was that there are fossils of sea creatures in the himalayas. The point i was making is that the whales carcasses found in the desert in Chile are not all that from present coastlines, close enough to have been under or connected to the sea in the past 2 to 7 million years.

reply to post by Flavian


Yes, got that one but what i'm trying to find out from you are the seashells and fossils in the Himalayas.

How old are the mountains? If they were formed millions of years ago - which might be the case or is the case - then how old are the seashells and fossils sitting on top of them - especially the ones in the higher peaks?


As for the whales -

Like you said:

it is entirely possible that in 2-7 million years, land has risen enough to escape the sea that is not that far away......

So the areas where these whale bones were found was at one time an ocean, correct?

Does this mean that there was more water way back then? If so where did the water go?

As for them - whale bones - me thinks - they beached themselves or got trapped when the water receded.

what say you?

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by edmc^2
just curious.

A curious creationist. Isn't that an oxymoron?

Creationist are ALWAYS CURIOUS - that's why we question everything not supported by science - like evolution theory.

Now here's the irony - an open minded evolutionists - no such thing.