EvoWiki is now a project of the RationalMedia Foundation.
We are moving all content to RationalWiki.
See the EvoWiki project page for details!

Talk:Mammoths have been found quickly frozen

From EvoWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Biased

The assumption made is that the decay and scavenging occurred before the Berezovka mammoth froze. However, the other possibility is that it occurred after the mammoth thawed, right before its discovery. It is well documented that the mammoth was being preyed on by dogs at the time of its discovery. Moreover, it makes sense that the mammoth would be found shortly after it thawed, as it is much easier to find a mammoth sticking out of the ice than encased deep within it.

I love the objectivity of the sources - a science journal and an evolutionary apologist! What a nice wide range of biases! Why not hear the other side of the story before drawing conclusions?

  • "It must have taken several days to freeze, since scavengers were able to mutilate it before it froze". That is not an assumption, it's an observation.
  • If a science journal is not objective enough for you, what is? Maybe a creationist journal? But it's nice to know that you you, whoever you are, acknowledge that science and creationism are opposed.
  • And this is an answer to what the other side said. One can't answer what one didn't hear. --tk 09:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate?

The frozen mammoths are frequently used by Velikovskians as evidence of sudden climate change, often citing the "tropical" plants the mammoths were eating. Would it be appropriate to refute some of these on this page or should another be made? Given that Velikovsky isn't actually a creationist in the usual sense, perhaps it's not appropriate for Wikipedia at all. What does everyone else think? --Suttkus 23:34, 23 March 2006 (GMT)

Tropical plants in the mouths of mammoths? Like the Siberian mammoths? What kind of tropical plants did they say were in the mouths of these mammoths?--Mr A. 00:48, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
Buttercups! --Suttkus 02:54, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
Buttercups? Mr Velikovsky honestly thinks that buttercups are tropical flowers? Even though the genus Ranunculus extends well into the Arctic Circle, with species like Ranunuculus lapponicus, better known as the "Lapland Buttercup?" Does this guy get enough oxygen on a regular basis?--Mr A. 05:08, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
Believe me, if I was going to make something up, I'd make up something that made more sense! The type of buttercup found in the mammoth mouths are found to this day on the tundra, but nevermind that! Some buttercups live in warmer climes, so buttercups are tropical, and clearly the wooly mammoth is a warm adapted creature that was frozen suddenly when comets pelted the earth and super-chilled it. I spent some of last night looking for Velikovsky debunkings in detail to keep my facts straight, but all I found were a few small rebuttals and plenty of pro-"The comet Venus jumped out of Jupiter and played cosmic pinball"-nonsense sites. --Suttkus 13:11, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
I think it would be appropriate for EvoWiki even if there were no creationists using it, since Velikovsky is anti-evolution too. But it is also a "creationist claim", as can be seen from the Jehovah's Witnesses source. But I just added another source: Walt Brown. --tk (t) 08:01, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
RWF
Navigation
Toolbox