"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...
That there are remnants not yet found (or may never be found) from
something on the order of 30E6 years ago is far less of a presumption
that the "divine intervention" or similar arguments.

That isn't what he said. He said transitional fossils
aren't there, not some remnants.

OK then, that there are transitional fossils not yet found (or may never
be found) from something on the order of 30E6 years ago is far less of a
presumption that the "divine intervention" or similar arguments.

But if the prevailing theory is correct, they should be there so
so divine intervention looks better to me.

The lack of fossil evidence isn't the same as non-existence.


It is unless you believe by faith.


The point
is that many types of species will have had virtually no possiblity of
ever being fossilized in the first place.


That's not true, even veins in Jellyfish have been fossilized. Transitional
fossils should be in relative abundance in the Darwinian slow mutation
model.


Others would have minimal
opportunity owing to composition, still others owing to general
conditions surrounding them. Add to that the impossibility of exploring
every cubic centimeter of the earth's volume and the sizable
restructuring of much of that, it's frankly amazing there is as much of
a fossil record as there is.


But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.


To postulate that any form could _never_
have existed is simply not supported by the fact it may/has not yet been
found. I find drawing inferences from the evidence of what we do find
and other scientific processes far more satisfying.


But that's what ID is. Inference from evidence. You can pick a side
but to blame the other for using the same criteria isn't reasonable.