Interesting Article I Stumbled Upon

[Deagonx]

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm

I found it in another discussion forum I was in and found it really enlightening. It's not solid evidence, but it does make some very good points about the viability of 'fossil records' and how reasonable evidence can be ignored if it contradicts already well established beliefs.

Your thoughts?

[Steelfist]

Very interesting. While eyewitness accounts are no substitute for 'rock solid' evidence, they certainly bear investigation. I would respond to this by saying 'Why aren't there more eyewitness accounts?'; if the eyewitness accounts were as recent as a 'few hundred' years, why didn't more people say that they had seen these fantastical creatures?

As for the reference to the book of Job; I would say that he is forcing a known factor to fit a preposition to defend his position.

I apologise, but I feel the article is simply too long to discuss properly. If you would care to summarise the points which you wish to discuss (Argue about), I would be more than willing to debate them.

[Gath]

Interesting, to be certain, but not very trustworthy. I'll start at the beginning.

First of all, the article mentions the Thunderbird. It is true that the description sounds like a pterodactyl, but it certainly isn't what I'd call an 'eyewitness account'. Most Native American stories are based off of real creatures, but that does not mean they all were. Also, it fails to explain the fact that no fossils of pterodactyls have been found that have dated back to any time in the last 65 million years. The article claims it is an 'eyewitness account vs. rocks', but this is far from the truth. A story is not the same as an eyewitness account. (Also, to be honest, I'd believe a rock, because a person can lie, while a rock...) I'll also ask this: If people looking for proof of evolution are quick to accept false evidence, (as they have in the past) wouldn't those who are looking for proof against evolution be just as quick to accept false evidence against it?

The article also mentions the Behemoth. It states "That's a remarkably good description of the dinosaur formerly known as brontosaurus (now called apatosaurus)." Now then, this statement really makes me distrust the article. The brontosaurus was not the same thing as an apatosaurus, a brontosaurus was a mistaken combination between two dinosaurs. I'd expect the author to recognize the difference, and the fact that they don't makes me question their research. However, I digress. The Behemoth's description itself is what really gets me. The article, as quoted above, says it's a good description of the apatosaurus. However, there was very little description regarding the look of the creature, and I disagree with the author. I think it's a rather poor description of an apatosaurus. The Leviathan seems to be a bit more trustworthy, as it has a better description, but as there are no other descriptions or drawings of the Leviathan, I doubt it ever existed.

Later on, that article makes some pretty suspect claims. For example, "The discovery of living plesiosaurs would tend to discredit the theory of evolution." That is not a true statement. The discovery of a plesiosaur would not discredit evolution any more than discovering a new type of butterfly does. I know I shouldn't be citing Wikipedia, but I really don't have the time to find respectable sources for these two links, so I hope you'll forgive me. First of all, there are things known as Lazarus Taxons. A Lazarus Taxon is an organism that disappears from the fossil record and reappears later on. A good example is the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth was a fish that was believed to be extinct, until rediscovered in 1938. Its discovery did nothing to discredit evolution, as would the discovery of a plesiosaur. Note that it would be unlikely, as very few Lazarus Taxons exist, but it certainly would not be impossible for plesiosaurs to exist without us knowing.

While I'm on the subject, I believe that a quick mention of the Moscow Monster is in order. The monster was discovered in Russia, and originally thought to be a plesiosaur. After seeing a picture of it, it's easy to see why. However, after viewing the specimen, scientists concluded that it was actually a Beluga whale. So, the situation of the fishermen mentioned in the article certainly isn't the only time a marine animal has been mistaken for a plesiosaur.

As far as dating goes, radiocarbon (or carbon-14) dating has been proven to be accurate. If you're claiming that the dates it gives are wrong, we've got a completely different subject to debate.

So, in conclusion, the author makes some false claims, has some pretty suspect descriptions, and completely ignores the possibility of being biased while constantly talking of his opponent's bias...I'm going to call FAKE on this one. It's a good attempt, but it is poorly researched and makes spurious claims.