Skip to main content

View Diary: I am sick of this creationist crap (216 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can a woolly mammoth be fossilized? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    I'm being picky, but a fossil by definition has to be fossilized or turned to stone (or impressed into stone).  The Columbian mammoth is old enough to be fossilized, but the Woolly is only a few hundred thousand years old at best.  

    West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

    by Nicolas Fouquet on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:33:48 AM PDT

    •  Definitely (0+ / 0-)

      They were around for millions of years, plenty long enough to fossilize. Check out the skeletons:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

      by raincrow on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:42:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see "Columbian" & "Woolly" used interchangeably (0+ / 0-)

        But the "Woolly" is technically another much younger species.  The legislation wording bounces back and forth between the two, too.  It could be that SC has a state fossil that is incorrectly named (which partially defeats the purpose of naming such things).

        West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

        by Nicolas Fouquet on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 10:44:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site