On 28/08/2014 6:25 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed
only one or two anomalies.
But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that
Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian
Evolutionists are beginning to see that DE theory is becoming
untenable. There are new holes poked thru it everyday.
I wrote about radiometric dating of fossils, you have jumped to
"Darwinian Theory" whatever that may be. It seems you have a problem
following a line of argument?
*From:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350
million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do
tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350
million years old?
I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know
how this field of science works in general and have been highly
impressed at the quality of some of the data. I have no argument
with sincere scientists doing the job the best way they know how.
Mistakes can be made but with enough diverse minds at work on the
same problems the truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not
interested in being told that one or two interesting anomalies
renders this whole field of science invalid.
