More Questions for Christians

[Drich]

To me it's kinda obvious, but maybe you honestly don't see it.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/chile-fos...ery-solved
The authors of the artical saw it and changed the term whale to marine mammal. However the Washington post specifically identifies Specific species and places the date closer to the time of the ark than the millions of years (200 million years) 'science' says this place was a desert.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/h...story.html

That would mean these Whales and other creatures who the Washington post reports as being found there (who also live thousands of years ago not millions) would have had to die before the Triassic period..
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Desert

Do you see the problem yet?

Where are you getting that the animals lived thousands of years ago? It's not in any of the links you gave; you just seem to have asserted it. I don't think you actually understood any of what was said, there.

Maybe just state your point clearly, instead of futzing around and misrepresenting what's in your own links?

Sorey, I left a reference out.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baleen_whale

The Washington post identifies the baleen whale. The reference above tells us the baleen whale first appeared in the Oligocene period. (33 to 23 million years ago.) thats the earliest they could have been there, (the sea sloth the found reels the number back to just one or two million years ago, the post dates the whales with in a few thousand years of the sloths.) while again the whole region was a desert from the Triassic period 2 or 3 hundred million year before.