Posted on 09/09/2009 10:05:48 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Cambrian rock layers contain fossils that represent almost every modern phylum of animal, plus many that are now extinct. One animal fossil in particular would win the weird prize, if there were one. Paleontologists have been piecing together this strange creature’s body parts, which look as though they were taken from an array of totally different sea animals. This variety of features eludes an evolutionary explanation.
The parts of this particular fossilized animal had previously been described separately and given different names, as though they belonged to different creatures. But a recent study revealed that all these parts came from just one “totally strange” sea creature...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
[[I’m still trying to figure out how they reconstructed an entire proto-human skeleton out of three knuckle bones from an extinct species of peccary.]]
They sniffed a LOT of glue before they attempted it?
That's 6000 biblical years which can mean anything, depending on the circumstance.
Oh.
That clears everything up.
per usual, the anticreation/ID folks have got nothign more than petty ‘Nuh Uh’s’ and ‘Christians creationists and ID folks stink’ Guess when they’ve run out of ammo- all they can manage is silly spitwads and insults- interesti ng article and find- would be nice to see the evos explain the cambrian explosion- but I guess all we’re goign to get fro mthem is ‘creationsits are liars’ and ‘creationists are psuedoscientists’ or at hte very best- all we’ll get ‘of course there’s no fossils before hte cambrian explosion- conditions probably weren’t right to preserve them’ lol
And as far as the platypus is concerned, he could sneak a peek at Platypus Genome Reveals Secrets of Mammal Evolution http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080507-platypus.html. See? Science isn't so hard when you pull your head out.
Yes- be sure to head on over to National Geographic for all your evolution indoctrination lol- they’ve got ‘the truth’ dontchaknow
That would require honesty, a commodity that YECs sorely lack.
It’s always the same. For the most part it doesn’t even bother me anymore. I go on the offense by posting ever more articles and papers exposing Darwin’s unscientific creation myth, and the Temple of Darwin weeps, snarls, and gnashes its teeth because they can’t control it (like they have grown accustomed to doing in our public schools, universities, the MSM, etc).
Mr. Thomas has a long history of drawing the least likely conclusion from the most likely sources.
Yep we cancelled our subscription many years ago when they became a politcal tool of hte left- I guess they always were- but they’ve really started pouring it on, and have proven they wouldn’t recognize a scientific fact if it bit htem in their monkey butts
(continued) As once again he uses himself as a source in his citations.
Thomas, B. Why Can Moss Process Human Genes? ICR News. Posted on icr.org June 16, 2009, accessed August 24, 2009.
[[and the Temple of Darwin weeps, snarls, and gnashes its teeth]]
bingo- as they’re proving quite nicely already in htis thread
Are those like “dog years”?
Bush’s fault. Always was, always will be.
See?
Just as with your inability to interpret evidence, you’ve also misinterpreted our LAUGHTER.
Paleontologists have been piecing together this strange creature’s body parts, which look as though they were taken from an array of totally different sea animals.
So an animal had seemingly similar features from other sea creatures. OMG, such a discovery!!
This variety of features eludes an evolutionary explanation.
Actually, it eludes nothing, dear Brian....you just need to claim it so for your worshipers to bite onto.
The parts of this particular fossilized animal had previously been described separately and given different names, as though they belonged to different creatures
AND??? Taxonomy has never been perfect, ESPECIALLY when dealing with squashed fossils.
And some of those taxa, or kinds,
Whoa...whoa...whoa...last article had SPECIES as "kind"....now it's just generic "taxa." What IS the definition of "kind", Brian?
Its initial discoverer thought that “the mouth parts were a jellyfish, the front legs were shrimp, the main body a sea cucumber, and a tear-drop shaped shell, another animal.”
It's initial discoverer....IN WHAT YEAR? Be honest, Brian....1909. LOTS of weird things have been discovered since. This is what happens when trying to interpret a 3 dinemsional creature form a 2 dinemsional fossil in the scientific stone ages, Brian.
But it makes sense as a created animal with mosaic features, which are shared among otherwise disparate organisms.
Ya don't say.....exactly HOW would it make sense as a "created" animal, Brian?
None of its features are transitional, but are instead found fully-formed in other creatures today that have no relationship to one another in any evolutionary scenario.
THIS is how it "makes sense"????? What you're saying, dear Brian, is that Walcott stumbled upon a graveyard of Gods Mr. Potatoe Head throw aways?
Ah yes....the goold ole platypus. Are you going to forget that there ARE ancestors of the platypus, Brian? Suuuuuure you are. Is this ignorance or an outright lie? Steropodon, Teinolophos, Obdurodon...
Let's see:
Use of the word "kind"....check.
Use of the word "design"...check.
All that's needed now is a false conclusion...........check.
I’m getting the notion that the kids who failed in grade school sciences like biology and chemistry have finally found a home.
There is more logic and common sense in your deconstruction of this tripe than in all of the pseudoscience that the OP has posted for our amusement.
Dewey: “Hey, Orel. What answer did you get for question number three on the science test?”
Orel: “Jesus.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.