Replies

Thqat Darwin Refuted site is just awsome!!

Why, do you really *enjoy* horse manure that much? And yes, I can document that assessment to any level of detail you'd like.

Let's look at one of the opening paragraphs, for example:

Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.

This is just.... moronic. Yes, "its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure" -- THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT. That in no way supports their opening claim that "the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale", and only an idiot (or an anti-evolutionist propagandist, but I repeat myself) would think that it did.

Even more jaw-droppingly stupid is the next sentence: "It was found in a region full of iron ore," (um, yeah, so f***ing what?) "and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one."

EARTH TO IDIOTS: snails, tortoises, and especially CROCODILES are SEMI-AQUATIC, you MORONS. How many crocodiles have you seen living in terrain *NOT* on the shore of some river, lake, or ocean?

For pete's sake, just how STUPID are these people? Crocodiles et al live PARTLY IN THE WATER, PARTLY ON LAND -- and gosh, SO DID THE ANCESTRAL WHALE being discussed. So by what brain fart did these imbeciles manage to take the presence of *crocodiles* as somehow a "disproof" of the scenario that the ancestral whale found in the same spot had a similar way of life?

The mind *boggles* at the ability of the anti-creationists to MISS THE POINT so badly.

And how can you be so enamored with such nonsense as to call it "just awsome"? Most gradeschool kids could have made more sense than that web page.