The eyes have it (and dimes too)

[Ralph Shumaker]

Lew Wolfgang wrote:

> 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.


Hi Lew.

I'm sorry it took me so long to reply.  I have had very little time to 
access email of late.

There are many "embarrassments" for the evolutionists in the fossil 
record.  But at the moment, I had in mind the ones where the fossil 
record appears in reverse sequence or a totally mixed up sequence.  
Regarding where the fossil record appears in reverse sequence, in one 
such place the evolutionist would have you believe that over the course 
of hundreds of millions of years this chunk of rock layers was slowly 
turned completely over and did not break it apart (despite it being 
several hundred feet thick, half a mile wide, and several miles long) 
and left no rubble nor any other evidence of such a roll over (a very 
fanciful explanation).  This is almost as unbelievable as the rock that 
supposedly tests 4.3 million years old which by necessity must *never* 
have come into contact with water during that 4.3 million years.  
(Hogwash!)  Regarding where the fossil record appears in a totally mixed 
up sequence, evolutionists generally have been so embarrassed by their 
lack of even a fanciful explanation for it that they usually avoid its 
mention and seem to hope no one else brings it up.  However, this was 
several years ago.  Perhaps they have dreamed one up by now.