Originally posted by Delshad:
Please Quetzal, dont misunderstand me, I understood very clearly what you were trying to express in your previous post and I`m sorry if you thought otherwise.
Its just that, and I hope you agree with me here, NO scientific evidence really proofs your theory to be correct, and ill try to explain why:
The same can be said of gravity as well.
Lets say for an example that we are both proffesional archeologists and we both share the same view about evolution ,thus we place each of those fossils we would find into one of the two categories, mammals or reptiles.
Archeologists
1. An anthropologist who studies prehistoric people and their culture
You mean a palaeontologist.
Then whenever we find a fossil that has its own quite distinct skeletal structure yet resembling one of the categories we have set up(even in a very little way), we hurry to place it under one of the fixed categories or at its peak we would say ,"well it maybe is an ancient subspecie evolving to this or that" and possiblitys that suggest anything else but the theory of evolution is completely out of the question.
That way of thinking isnt so scientific at all because our conclusion will be influenced by the parameters we have set up.
That is why there a peer reviewed journals and the like so that a consensus can be reached.
Evolution has no conscioussness and between the time a mutation has ocurred and the time needed to by means of natural selection establish a symmetrical form, there is plenty of time for generation after generation to have traits possessing these "abnormal" shapes.
But none exists, I hope youll be able to open your eyes and see things from a different perspective, that is the scientific way of approaching the issue.
What I see is that you visit the ICR site too much and they filled you full of their pesudo-science nonsense. You didn't even know the proper title of those who study fossils (In fact you couldn't even spell fossil).
[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-26-2002]