The eyes have it (and dimes too)

[Lew Wolfgang]

Ralph Shumaker wrote:
> Lewis Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>> Basically, don't invent far-reaching and outrageous hypotheses
>> to explain an observation with local context.  If you're
>> walking down a backcountry path in Campo California and
>> you hear approaching hoof beats, don't postulate that a
>> zebra is approaching, it's probably a horse.
>>
>> If you observe a plethora of species with biological similarities
>> and you also notice a fossil and geologic record, don't come
>> up with a fantastic yarn of a infinitely powerful yet ethereal
>> spirit, Lord of a google of galaxies, who had the time to
>> fiddle with the nuts 'n' bolts level of life creation in this
>> back-water corner of a non-descript galaxy. 
> 
> or an even *more* fanciful yarn that it happened by chance.
> 
> That fossil and geologic record is not as friendly to the "theory" of 
> evolution as evolutionists would have you believe.  If you *really* pay 
> attention to that record, evolution is left embarrassed by it.  The 
> evolutionists still have not come up with a yarn fanciful enough to 
> explain the exceptions, though the great flood expects those exceptions.

Hi Ralph,

Exactly what embarrassments do the fossil records present?  The "yarn" that
scientists would come up with to explain exceptions are called "hypotheses".
These yarns have to be consistent with other theories and not violate any
natural laws.  If it's found that a yarn is wrong, the yarn is discarded
or amended.  Science very infrequently relies on the supernatural to
explain things, AFAIK.

Regards,
Lew