A fossil of a new kind if previously unknown dinosaur has just been
reported:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/...dmBHNlYwM3NTM-.
Earlier it was unknown, even though it existed in the fossil record. I
already discussed how sparse the fossil record is. Why do you keep flogging
a dead horse? Did ID predict it? Tell the scientists where to look? If
not, ID has once again demonstrated no advantage over evolution science.
There is something to be said for consistency.

Steve

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