Rate this post:
|From the threadDoes creationism predict gaps?
I give you the Aardonyx Celestæ.
Finally they found the dino that was turning into sauropods! Awesome!
It was a vegetarian (yes, they know). It was just beginning to put pressure on its forelegs (it wasn't very good at it yet).
I always wondered how that happened. Now i know more about it.
This is quite recent news.
I'm not marveled at all at the fact that it had the right traits, and was found in the right place and stratum (that's always the case). But you should.
They just keep finding them. They always fit. There are so many millions and billions of virtual fossils that, if found, could easily show that the ToE is wrong (giants and unicorns, for instance). None has ever been found.
They keep finding magnificent beasts. Many deserve a lot more attention than the lions, lambs and grasshoppers from the Bible.
Then take back your claim that "we would expect". Post hoc stories don't qualify as "expectations".
Er... Why? Why not a single self-sufficient kind? Why not just us and a solar chemical process to feed us?
In a created world we would expect to find different kinds of animals
Because what we see is what we have.
We do expect. A lot. The ToE really predicts. A lot. The Tiktaalik and the Aardonyx Celestæ fit smoothly in our expectations.
We have a phylogenetic tree. Everything we find must fit, or the tree falls down.
You have nothing, and nothing falls down. Anything we find will meet your explanation: "Because what we see is what we have."
We expect much, and we don't get disappointed.
You expect nothing, and you don't get disappointed.
Your lack of disappointment is worth much less.
|Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread |
Scientists assert (by Lester):
Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
Contact me at email@example.com
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?