40
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 378:
Line 378: + + + +
→Argument about relative abundance of marine and terrestrial fossils: new section
*I agree with Mike, we should take out that out the part about Dinosaurs still being around. There's no evidence to support that Dinosaurs have not gone extinct, none from the Bible or any other Conservative doctrine. And TK you didn't have to be so offensive, in fact it's commonly believed that Dinosaurs are in fact extinct, and there's no expert that would say that they are not. Please restrict your involvement on an issue that you have no knowledge of. From your fellow Conservative.--[[User:CraigR|CraigR]] 21:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)
*I agree with Mike, we should take out that out the part about Dinosaurs still being around. There's no evidence to support that Dinosaurs have not gone extinct, none from the Bible or any other Conservative doctrine. And TK you didn't have to be so offensive, in fact it's commonly believed that Dinosaurs are in fact extinct, and there's no expert that would say that they are not. Please restrict your involvement on an issue that you have no knowledge of. From your fellow Conservative.--[[User:CraigR|CraigR]] 21:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)
== Argument about relative abundance of marine and terrestrial fossils ==
I have removed the argument that human and dinosaur fossils are not found together because most fossils are marine and we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all. This is EXACTLY THE SAME argument used by scientists to explain gaps in the sequence of human evolution, and the obvious danger from the creationist point of view is that after accepting this argument to explain the lack of human fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs, scientists are going to demand that it's also accepted to explain the absence of ape/human transitions. --[[User:Voiceoftruth2006|Voiceoftruth2006]] 10:36, 14 June 2011 (EDT)