Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
Oh, BTW. A 49 million year old, fully aquatic ancient whale fossil would clearly demonstrate that the younger so-called ‘transistional’ fossils were, in fact, nothing of the sort. To claim otherwise is science fiction, and is illogical.
It's spelled transitional, and it's an irrelevant word to boot. Your analysis is also wrong, a correction of a timeline is very interesting, but does not pose a problem - since no credible authorities has ever argued that these things are known to full detail. We correct our knowledge of these things all the time, and we will of course continue to do so. That's why it is a scientific field. This isn't even the biggest recent finding that has forced us to revisit our knowledge of such things, but course... when you only gain your knowledge of these things from arbitrary networks of fundamentalist propaganda - you are going to miss out.
Not that you would care about any of that, as it is clear that your demand for "evolution" is that every fossil on this earth must be excavated, studied, fully agreed upon and this record must represent a perfect chronological chain / tree.
Not that this completely bonkers demand would help (it's clearly just a rhetorical crutch for you), because we know very well that when consensus is broad, you always just argue conspiracy and shout some pamphlet-hyperbole. I sincerely doubt that even if you have spent 10+ years here arguing against evolution that your understanding of the subject would be enough to earn you a passing grade on a junior high biology test.
Add to this that the standard of evidence for your religious theory is non-existent, that you enjoy insulting anyone who argues with you and that you in general show absolutely understanding or willingness to understand the concepts you argue...
... and your relevance drops to, well, pretty much the opposite of biblical proportions.
Last edited by tame_deuces; 05-10-2017 at 06:26 AM.