Evolution is preposterous

The Irish Independent ^ | July 7, 2007 | CIARAN FARRELL,

[Coyoteman]

But....she has a very good point. Where are all the fossils supporting evolution?

When I studied evolution for a number of years in grad school I didn't have any trouble finding fossils that support the theory of evolution. They were all through the textbooks and journals, and the bone lab had a rather impressive collection of casts.

There are a lot more in the textbooks and journals now. And, nowadays there are fossils all over the internet as well.

So who's having trouble finding fossils that support evolution?

Or is it that some folks have decided, for religious reasons, that evolution didn't happen, and thus conclude that no fossils could support that idea?

[CottShop]

[[At the same time there are other scientists who disagree with their findings. That’s the scientific process at work]]

Agreed, and I’m glad you stated that.

[[What, in your opinion, does the fossil record show?]]

Simple- Created Kinds and an explosion of fully functioning fully formed species

[CottShop]

[[So who’s having trouble finding fossils that support evolution?]]

Folks who understand that there are no scientific facts backing hte hypothesis that everythign has common ancestors, and hwo understand that the biological impossibilities prevent such an hypothesis from being factual.

[[Or is it that some folks have decided, for religious reasons, that evolution didn’t happen, and thus conclude that no fossils could support that idea?]]

Nope- See reply above.

[Non-Sequitur]

Simple- Created Kinds and an explosion of fully functioning fully formed species

Hundreds of centuries apart. Shouldn't you have amphibians and reptiles and mammals and human fossils all dating from the same era?

[CottShop]

First of all, we probably do have human fossils from that time period, as well as other fossils- however, the ‘infallible dating methods’ [sarcasm] employed by geologists and archeologists date them wrong based on flukey dating methods, and an a priori belief about age. I’ll not get into that arguemtn though as you have your beleif and faith and opinion in the system of dating, and we don’t- simple as that. We can argue all day long about the veracity of the dating method, but it’s a fruitless argument as those hwo beleive in it must do so based on a priori beliefs and assumptions- that is not meant as insult, as our faith also is based on beleif- the simple fact is, the dating methods are wonky, and we have no way of going back in time and must step outside of science and base our beliefs on assumptions - a priori assumnptions- botrh sides must do this. I’m sorry, but I don’t have faith in an a priori dating method where one would find a human skull in the wrong place and is able to state “The date must be wrong’ and keep trying until a date that fits the a priori belief pops up. We can deny htis takes place, but it is said that a majority of dates are rejected by peer review, and this very well could play into it. We know that hwen human artifacts or fossils show up where they aint sposed to be, we’rte told that ‘something must have happened to place it htere- some ‘natural phenomena’ and we’re handed an explanation to explain it away- always! and I’m sorry, but there are just too many major assumptions employed, and too much spologetics (for lack of better word) when evidences contradict the a priori belief. you may dissagree, but that is my stand on this issue and I respect your beleif as well- I just dissagree.

Secondly, it seems ot me that the fossils labelled as Cambrian age fossils (again based on wonky dating methods) were over 5000 species strong and mostly all oceanic species- mollusks, jellyfish, sponges, corrals, worms,sponges, trilobytes and crustations, and fishes. Whati s hte reason for htis? There are several explainations- one being that massive sedimentary disruptions during a chaotic disruptive event such as, oh say, a flood, forced a compilation of certain species, in this case oceanic species, to be buried deep, under massive pressure, while other species were buried in other areas and at different levels, and under lesser pressures (which would have been the case had the species been floated at or near surface of water and deposited later than the oceanic species which wouldn’t have floated as well. This of course is hypothetical, and just speculation, and not something I stand by- but it’s a plausibility non the less.

[OriginalIntent]

Locke_2007, it has been over a week and I have not heard from you. I would like to continue our discussion about morality. You made some claims that I would like to continue to examine and hear how you justify your position.

Please reread my post #339 and give me your response.