Nat

"I'm talking about shoe prints in old layers, and not just that there are plenty of annomolies found in old layers like metal spheres, coins, threads,...etc."

Please post evidence of these claims. I would love to see some references.

Thanks

Quetzal

"Living fossil"? Ain't no such thing. If you're talking coelocanth, you're barking up the wrong tree. The Cretaceous fossil coelocanths aren't even the same genus as the modern, living ones. Calling the modern fish a "fossil" is no different than calling modern humans "fossils".

As to the "gap" represented by missing fossils (from 75 mya 'till their living descendents were discovered), no real surprises there. You're talking about a pelagic species - it's really difficult to dig for fossils on the continental shelf. I've got a news flash for you - there are literally thousands of modern species whose direct, fossil ancestry we can't trace.

Using some journalist's hyperbole (i.e., "living fossil") as some kind of refutation of the ToE is as baseless and silly as most creationist arguments - which you claim not to be.

Try again.

Nialler

Yup. I'd love to see that evidence of human footprints and artifacts.

Any references?

Go on - share them with us. It goes straight to the point of your credibility and is the most simple of your claims to establish.

Duvenoy

The answer is very simple: evidence, the time to analyze it, attention to detail, and peer review.

All of this doesn't happen where 'lives are at stake.' There often is no time for careful analysis, nor sometimes even evidence gathering, until the crisis is resolved, or at least scaled down. Science, on the other hand, has all the time it needs.

Does science make mistakes? You betcha! Piltdown Man comes to mind as well as well as Nebraska Man, but those mistakes (one a famous hoax that I wish I'd thought up, and the other a worn out peccary tooth that looked a lot like a human's) are sooner or later corrected, usually sooner.

But I think the key word here is peer review. When a discovery is announced, everybody qualified in the field who wants one, may have a piece of the action. Different labs will work to duplicate experiments, verifing or refuting the original claims.

Here’s an example of peer review of the 7myo skull I mentioned in a previous post. These French folks are kind'a excitable:

<a href="http://www.primeorigins.co.za/news/994720.htm" target="_blank">http://www.primeorigins.co.za/news/994720.htm</a>

And:

<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/13/1026185124750.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/13/1026185124750.html</a>

At the moment, I'm reserving opinion. I don't have enough info. Of course, I'm hoping that it is indeed a transisional, hominid species, if only to listen to the howls of denial and anguish from our Creationist friends.



doov

Edited to clean up some truly wretched spelling. Dunno if I got it all or not.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Duvenoy ]</p>

Wyz_sub10

I take it you don't "agree" with forensic pathologists either?

A few years ago here in Toronto, they recently solved a murder case that happened in the 1930s based on information they found.

Not only *can* we piece together a murder than took place weeks ago, but we can peice together murders that took place *decades* ago, and it happens often.

Yes, you absolutely are.

It's not a belief in origins that's the issue. It's your total disregard for the scientific method that causes the reactions you are getting.

For instance...

Those "experts" cannot produce tangible evidence. You don't seem to differentiate between evidence and anecdotes.

But it's compelling for 99% of the expert community...and yet you insist you are *not* saying you know better?

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>