[B][QUOTE]Of course I have, and it as bogus now as it was last time you are some other fairytale lover brought it up. It’s a toothless test, because such a discovery would be extremely unlikely. Take another look at the pie chart in my article. Mammalian fossils constitute a miniscule sliver of the fossil record. They are very rare, and most are represented by a bone or less. When one is found, the odds of it being buried with marine invertebrates is astronomically low. But feel free to go ahead and pound your fist that this is a test of evolution![/B][/QUOTE]
So you can point us to examples of modern marine vertebrates found in undisturbed cambrian deposits - or is there some mechanism which ensures that marine vertebrates and invertebates are sorted in the fossil record? Similarly for plants - primitive plants and trees frequently grow on high and dry ground along with recently evolved forms including flowering plants and grasses. Modern forms are found in low lying swampy areas. Yet the fossil record demontrates remarkably clear sorting - no modern forms, no flowering plants found out of sequence. I'm not talking pollen here (before you are tempted by that spurious line) but fossil evidence of the bodies of flowering plants, grasses and modern trees. How utterly ubiquitous they are in the ecology of the world! How absent they are from the early fossil record!
[B][QUOTE]BTW, when plausible examples of out-of-sequence fossils are discovered, they are explained away.[/B][/QUOTE]
Plausible to you perhaps. Explained as frauds, misinterpretations and poor fieldwork, mostly. Anyway, why must you rely on "plausible" for your story? Let's see some "incontrovertible."
[B][QUOTE]So even by some incredible stroke of luck a mammallian fossil was found buried with marine invertebrates, evolutionists would invoke a just-so story of how it got there.[/B][/QUOTE]
As you say, if it was incredible it would not be given credibility: it kinda follows from the definition, doesn't it? Funny how language works that way.[B][QUOTE]I already have many evolutionists admit that finding living dinosaurs would not falsify evolution for them.[/B][/QUOTE]
I should hope so too. A living dinosaur would provide a revised terminus post quem for dinosaur extinction. A mammal fossil in the Cambrian would provide a terminus ante quem for mammal development. As evolution is concerned primarily with the appearance of new forms (the "origin" of species, remember?) then the latter is much more significant.
[B][QUOTE]You guys have a countless number of escape hatches. A theory with more escape hatches than evidence is really no better than a low-grade hypothesis.[/B][/QUOTE]
So your theory is presumably worse still and completely worthless, as creation by an omnipotent, omniscient being can explain any and all conceivable realities. Thanks again for the confirmation that your theory is not worth considering for this reason.
™ Version 4.2