Wheeley writes:
No I didn’t. I know he found just teeth, but teeth are attached to a jawbone, which is attached to a skull which is attached to a body: a skeleton. I know he didn’t find a skeleton, but if shark’s teeth were on a mountain, then so was the rest of it at some point in time. So, therefore how did it get there, on the mountain embedded into rock layers?
Others have already pointed out that shark skeletons are composed of cartilage and so do not fossilise well. Another fact to consider is that sharks constantly lose and replace their teeth, with some sharks losing up to 30,000 teeth through their lifetime. So finding fossil shark teeth does not mean they were initially associated with a whole skeleton.
Also as you stated you are not here to get into a debate about the articles on your website, but will you be correcting the various errors in your articles as already highlighted? Are you going to properly research the articles based on what science says and what the theory of evolution actually describes, rather than basing your knowledge on dodgy youtube videos and your fabricated 'evolutionist'?
By the way, if you click on the peek button next to reply it will show you how people format their posts, so should help you with quote boxes and such.
™ Version 4.2