oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
O'Dreary has disproved evolution and confirmed Noah's Ark existed. Or something!
| Quote | | What should scientists do when they encounter evidence of the history of life that does not fit their expectations? |
Oddly she does not ask why "intelligent design scientists" have failed to encounter any evidence at all for anything whatsoever.
O'Dreary goes on
| Quote | Walcott found more and more fossils. He shipped over sixty thousand back to the Smithsonian. He had found the equivalent of Noah's Ark. He found every animal phylum, or - as Schroeder puts it - the "basic anatomies" of all animal life forms today.
Cause for rejoicing? No, because there was a problem. The problem was that the find obviously did not support Darwin's theory of evolution: |
Well, Denise, now that you've found evidence against Darwin's theory you've won, right? Or is this "evidence" not really anything of the sort?
| Quote | | So the reigning theory was probably false. Walcott, remember, was the director of the Smithsonian Institution. And he had just discovered something very inconvenient for the Institution. So what did he do? |
"probably" false? I thought you'd just disproved it O'Dreary? What's with the probably?
So what did Walcott do?
| Quote | | Well, he mentioned his spectacular find in Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, a publication read by few people. And then he put them in drawers and left them there. They did not receive the attention they deserved for eighty years. |
He published and filed them?
| Quote | | Many people have tried to understand and explain why Walcott ignored the significance of his Cambrian fossils, but the most likely reason is that the fossils were not what he had expected to see. He ignored them in order to preserve a belief system. |
The word "ignored" is linked to this page
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html
Where not a word is said about trying to understand why Walcott "ignored" his own finds (as opposed to preserving and publishing them). That page however does say
| Quote | | Since its discovery in 1909, the Burgess Shale has become the authoritative picture of life in the Cambrian Period. No longer solely relying on the remnants of hard shells or exoskeletons, we now have a much better and richer picture of early animal communities. The sediment flow fossilization of the Burgess Shale has produced unique dark stained fossils that reveal the countless variety of soft bodied organisms. Soft-bodied organisms are now know to have existed in greater number and variety than those Cambrian organisms exhibiting hard parts. Additionally, quarries of the Burgess Shale contain evidence of the existence of our chordate ancestors, with fossils so finely preserved that they display traces of a notochord. Most importantly, the Burgess Shale tells of the Cambrian explosion, a huge radiation of marine animal life that included sponges, soft bodied arthropods and those with hard exoskeletons, the first chordates, worms, and trilobites, as well as the strange spiked creatures such as Wiwaxia, and the large predator Anomalocaris. The Burgess Shale represents a snapshot of the evolution of a marine biota that would come to dominate the world's oceans for the next 300 million years. |
And yet this somehow supports ID?
I can only conclude (again) that O'Dreary is hard of understanding.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-des....plosion
Message to UD: Any chance of any ID news, rather then attempts to pick holes in "darwinism"? No? Oh well.
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
