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

reply to post by Daedal

Something wrong here as Copiapo is more than half mile (about 63 kilometers) from the ocean...
...and is at 2200 feet above sea level.

reply to post by edmc^2


This is a bit like asking how old are the cars in China

There are lots of cars of varying ages so the question is impossible to answer unless you make it more specific.

So, which fossils do you mean? Could you show us some photos of the specific ones you are referring to and, ideally (given we cannot handle them), where specifically they were found? We may then be able to determine an approximate age.

Or are you just trolling?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
I already know the defense of the creationist myth believers on this one... If you press them hard enough and demand answers, with their backs against the wall, they will say that "Satan placed them there to 'test' their faith"!!!

Yep, the mythical imaginary "satan" boogeyman swoops in again to rescue the silly creationists beliefs!!

Like mentioned in an earlier post, creationists ARE like trying to debating with a wall.

edit on 24-11-2011 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)

You're dang right proponents of creation are like impenetrable walls because they are on the side of the truth!!

Just to give you an example of this truth- ponder over this universal truth:

Life can only come from life!

While it may be true that life can only come from life, that is in no way shape or form evidence for "Your version of your god" creating it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Murchison contains common amino acids such as glycine, alanine and glutamic acid as well as unusual ones like isovaline and pseudoleucine.[3] The initial report stated that the amino acids were racemic (that is, the chirality of their enantiomers are equally left- and right-handed), indicating that they are not present due to terrestrial contamination. A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well, similar to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment. Serine and threonine, usually considered to be earthly contaminants, were conspicuously absent in the samples. A specific family of amino acids called diamino acids was identified in the Murchison meteorite as well.[4]

I put a small quote in there for you incase you didn't want to check out the link and blindly follow Kent Hovind's teachings from patriot bible school..

reply to post by troubleshooter

According to this somewhat more reliable source, the city in question is actually Caldera, which is on the coast, and is also in the Atacama.

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by edmc^2

 

This is a bit like asking how old are the cars in China

There are lots of cars of varying ages so the question is impossible to answer unless you make it more specific.

So, which fossils do you mean? Could you show us some photos of the specific ones you are referring to and, ideally (given we cannot handle them), where specifically they were found? We may then be able to determine an approximate age.

Or are you just trolling?

Trolling? Then why reply to my post if i'm trolling?

Anyway Astynax mentioned ammonites for one - many of them are found around 12,000 above sea level.

library.thinkquest.org...


Along with ammonites are seashells also just like the ones found on beaches.

Many of these marine lifes are found in other parts of the world's tall mountains - like the Appalachia.

www.ehow.com...

would be interesting to know the age of these marine lifeforms - on top of mountains.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

According to this somewhat more reliable source, the city in question is actually Caldera, which is on the coast, and is also in the Atacama.

No, Caldera is a city reference on the coast ... Atacama is a high altitude desert region east of it at 2200 feet above sea level.

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by edmc^2
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.

Evolution theory, as you put it, is a framework to describe evolution, which itself is factually observed. Note the word 'observed', not 'made up'.

PS - there's no such thing as an evolutionist. I can observe curtains in front of my windows... it doesn't make me a curtainist.

which part of evolution theory are you talking about - as you know there are several theories out there - so when you say "observed" - what do you mean?

Which one?

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

According to this somewhat more reliable source, the city in question is actually Caldera, which is on the coast, and is also in the Atacama.

No, Caldera is a city reference on the coast ... Atacama is a high altitude desert region east of it at 2200 feet above sea level.

Wow - so if the location where they found the whale bones are at that level - 2200 feet - that's quite a large amount of water.

This proves to me that at some point in time the earth was inundated with water.

How else can you explain them bones got there?

reply to post by troubleshooter

Atacama is a high altitude desert region east of it at 2200 feet above sea level.

You are wrong, at least according to Wikipedia and other sources I checked.

Atacama is a desert area that extends all the way to the coast, and Caldera, on the coast, is in the Atacama.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by edmc^2
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.

Evolution theory, as you put it, is a framework to describe evolution, which itself is factually observed. Note the word 'observed', not 'made up'.

PS - there's no such thing as an evolutionist. I can observe curtains in front of my windows... it doesn't make me a curtainist.

which part of evolution theory are you talking about - as you know there are several theories out there - so when you say "observed" - what do you mean?

Which one?

edit on 26-11-2011 by edmc^2 because: their - there

You're missing a very basic point...

Gravity is observed. The best explanation we have (i.e. the most testable AND most resilient) is special relativity.

Disease is observed. The best theory we have (the most testable and resilient) is germ theory.

Evolution is observed. The best theory we have (testable and resilient) is natural selection.

What bit don't you understand? It's really very simple...

Originally posted by edmc^2
Wow - so if the location where they found the whale bones are at that level - 2200 feet - that's quite a large amount of water.

This proves to me that at some point in time the earth was inundated with water.

How else can you explain them bones got there?

You kept asking the same question (the age of fossils) which I answered. Instead of replying, you simply change the debate. Another typical creationist avoidance. I suspect that all of us that have bothered to engage in this debate are all too old and wise to fall for that nonesense. You clearly don't understand the answers. If you did, you wouldn't be so dishonest. I know my views are precisely what ATS are trying to avoid, but in this instance, your argument is:

"I don't know, therefore you must be wrong".

Consider this - perhaps you're too indocrinated to be able to see beyond your own limited understanding...

No offense intended.

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by edmc^2
Wow - so if the location where they found the whale bones are at that level - 2200 feet - that's quite a large amount of water.

This proves to me that at some point in time the earth was inundated with water.

How else can you explain them bones got there?

You kept asking the same question (the age of fossils) which I answered. Instead of replying, you simply change the debate. Another typical creationist avoidance. I suspect that all of us that have bothered to engage in this debate are all too old and wise to fall for that nonesense. You clearly don't understand the answers. If you did, you wouldn't be so dishonest. I know my views are precisely what ATS are trying to avoid, but in this instance, your argument is:

"I don't know, therefore you must be wrong".

Consider this - perhaps you're too indocrinated to be able to see beyond your own limited understanding...

No offense intended.

Wooe, back up the horsey there for a min man. What did I say there man?

I was just voicing my opinion on what you said. As you can see there are two topics running on this thread. One the water level and the second is the age of the fossils that are on top of mountain ranges. Eventually if you have patience these two topics will merge.

In the meantime though do you agree with what I said about the water level?

As for the age of the marine life fossils do you agree that they should be the same or a lot more older the mountains themselves if it is true that at one point in time the mountains themselves were underwater?

What say you?

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by edmc^2
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.

Evolution theory, as you put it, is a framework to describe evolution, which itself is factually observed. Note the word 'observed', not 'made up'.

PS - there's no such thing as an evolutionist. I can observe curtains in front of my windows... it doesn't make me a curtainist.

which part of evolution theory are you talking about - as you know there are several theories out there - so when you say "observed" - what do you mean?

Which one?

edit on 26-11-2011 by edmc^2 because: their - there

You're missing a very basic point...

Gravity is observed. The best explanation we have (i.e. the most testable AND most resilient) is special relativity.

Disease is observed. The best theory we have (the most testable and resilient) is germ theory.

Evolution is observed. The best theory we have (testable and resilient) is natural selection.

What bit don't you understand? It's really very simple...

edit on 26-11-2011 by BagBing because: typos

What point? I'm merely asking which part of the evolution theory are you talking about?

When you say "observed" are you referring to "macroevo" or "microevo, 'cuz according to the theory - "macroevo" takes millions even billions of years to take place. Thus it can't be observe.

what say u?

Originally posted by edmc^2
What point? I'm merely asking which part of the evolution theory are you talking about?

When you say "observed" are you referring to "macroevo" or "microevo, 'cuz according to the theory - "macroevo" takes millions even billions of years to take place. Thus it can't be observe.

what say u?

Macroevolution is simply the way to explain thousands or even millions of small changes over a large period of time. We can see a large amount of these changes in the fossil record. When you look at early hominid fossils, they gradually change into what we are today. Homo sapiens have changed a good amount since our species first emerged. You are looking at the beginning and the end result and asking how without looking at the thousands of fossils of species in between or considering the billions we'll never find. If you agree that microevolution is true, then you have to agree that macro is true, since it's merely the accumulation of millions of years worth of changes and it's obvious in the fossil record.

reply to post by BagBing

You kept asking the same question (the age of fossils) which I answered. Instead of replying, you simply change the debate.

You’re wasting your time. Emc^2 is well aware of the intellectual bankruptcy of his position. It makes no difference; he is operating on faith and he is part of a movement. To prove what I say, here is a list of recent posts by him as shown on his profile.

A lot of our regulars in this forum are on ATS only to promote the creationist agenda.

I guess the creationist movement needs funds, that is to say, tithes. After all, they have a lot of people to bribe, in government and local administration, to push their poisonous agenda through. So they’re out on the internet, recruiting. I’m not saying they get paid by their churches to do it, but I bet they get a hell of a lot of encouragement.

reply to post by Astyanax

A lot of our regulars in this forum are on ATS only to promote the creationist agenda.

Nope you're inccorrect there my friend - I believe they call it compare and contrast to see which one makes sense.

Believe what you want to believe - its your right and choice.

So far which one do you think makes sense?

Me says Creation without a doubt!

That's all I gots to say.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


On the one hand I tend to agree with you but on the other hand I used to be a creationist. I can't say it was an evolution supporter arguing with me that ever changed my mind but I definitely think it helped break down the barriers a bit. Having been on both sides of the fence on this issue the best piece of advice I can give to either side is to argue past the person not at them. Don't get bogged down in psychoanalyzing each other, just put forth your argument and whatever facts you have to support it.

As for the OP I can't see how this is raising the debate. Are people truly this ignorant about the varied geologic history of our Earth? Of course some areas that are now desert were once sea. Then again I could see how this just screams Noahs Flood to creationists, I'm not sure why they enjoy being reminded of the genocidal tendencies of their God.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

 

On the one hand I tend to agree with you but on the other hand I used to be a creationist. I can't say it was an evolution supporter arguing with me that ever changed my mind but I definitely think it helped break down the barriers a bit. Having been on both sides of the fence on this issue the best piece of advice I can give to either side is to argue past the person not at them. Don't get bogged down in psychoanalyzing each other, just put forth your argument and whatever facts you have to support it.

As for the OP I can't see how this is raising the debate. Are people truly this ignorant about the varied geologic history of our Earth? Of course some areas that are now desert were once sea. Then again I could see how this just screams Noahs Flood to creationists, I'm not sure why they enjoy being reminded of the genocidal tendencies of their God.

Does it follow if you are not a 'creationist' that there was not a flood?
Can a person not believe in a fiat creation yet believe there was a world wide deluge?

reply to post by troubleshooter

Does it follow if you are not a 'creationist' that there was not a flood?

Can a person not believe in a fiat creation yet believe there was a world wide deluge?

Pardon me for butting in, but these are interesting questions. The answer to the first is certainly ‘yes’, whether or not someone is a creationist: there is no evidence from geology for a worldwide, simultaneous flood. Someone who believes in such a flood must therefore have non-scientific reasons for doing so. What might that be, if not a belief in the literal truth of ancient fables?

Coming to the second question, there may be poorly-informed non-creationists who believe, whenever they give the matter any thought, that there really was a worldwide flood. I should think, though, that such people were few in number and relatively easily corrected.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Yes, there are those who believe in a worldwide flood without believing the Noah story literally. After all most civilizations have legends or stories of floods, but then most ancient civilizations lived right near a water supply (river, lake, ocean) so such stories make sense.

I remember folks like Graham Hancock putting forward the idea that when the ice from the ice age melted it may have caused catastrophic flooding at various times all over the world.

Most Flood defenders, though, are definitely the religious sort.