Quote
Thank you CTD for the link to the abstract on . . . "A Biometrical Study of Micraster coranguinum and M. (Isomicraster) senonensis." It is a careful and detailed morphological study. No doubt the scientists involved would appreciate your refutations of their data based on your careful study of their work, your observation of the actual fossils, and your general scientific expertise.
Did I, in my "refutation" dispute anything they said? Hmmm? I suppose I disputed the implication that anything there demonstrated "evolution" in the common sense of the word, but I don't deny that they were likely using the evosense: "evolution = change". And don't thank me - the link was provided by your expert witness.

Quote
You appear also to have ignored the paleontologist's analysis of the errors of Williams' information-presentation technique, which includes unsupported assertions, false facts, ad hominem attacks, arguments from ignorance, lack of awareness of recent scientific findings, irrelevant comments, and more. In short, Williams' treatise reads like a typical creationist diatribe. This may be acceptable to you, but it would be impossible to present it as good science.
"Unsupported assertions", eh? Ain't that cute. As if! As if... every single word a person writes must be taken from previous literature? Isn't that what this deceptive accusation means? But we know better. It's silly, impractical, and absurd to even suggest this (which is why he does it, no doubt). Fred Williams' article has references at the bottom of the page, or were you too busy reading the evoslander to look?

As your chosen mudslinger has openly demonstrated himself to be a liar, I don't know why you want to continue drawing folks' attention to him. But I am fully aware that you'd love for me to utterly waste my time debunking every lie he's written, and at the moment I decline to do so. I'm satisfied anyone who isn't wearing evogoggles can take his links and see how lame his "evidence" really is. I'm satisfied they can see what a fool he's made of himself without further assistance from me.

Quote
Quote
99%+ of the fossil evidence is utterly useless for the evolutionist cause. Stasis is everywhere and "transitionals" are absent.

Patently false, as a good read of any scientific website about the fossil record will explain to you. There is also plenty of evidence for transitional forms, including the horse and the whale. If you're going to trot out that old claim of yours that horse evolution was disproved, maybe you will back it up with evidence this time, instead of making yet another empty assertion.
Now you made me smile - almost laughed aloud. Horse & whales aren't marine invertebrates. Whales live in water, but they're vertebrates. Take another look at the chart.
<img src="http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/fossil_dist2.gif">Congratulations! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" />You're living evidence that Fred was right.

Quote
You also bring up some questions about reworked fossils. I explained to you what these are and why they necessarily exist, and I linked you to two sites which discuss them. One even discusses how fossils are dated in relation to where they are found in the fossil record; the earliest fossil found is highly unlikely to be the first of its kind to have evolved; and the most recent fossil of a species found is highly unlikely to be the last of its kind. This also should have been taken into account by Woodmorappe, though it wasn't, and it would also explain some of his "anomalous" dates. I was hoping you would take the time to read the information there.
I bring up questions? I don't think so. You're source brought up reworking in order to explain away the list, remember? But he didn't explain away the list because he never demonstrated that anything on the list actually had been reworked, now did he?

Quote
At any rate, let's have a look at an example of a reworked fossil. Let's say that a trilobite fossil has been found in an upper layer of soil by a casual passer-by. If that passer-by is a creationist (who has any idea of what a trilobite is, what is looks like and whenabouts it is supposed to have lived), they will say, "Look! An anomalous fossil! The fossil record is wrong and evolution is dead!"
Who cares?

Quote
Now a scientist would be aware of several factors here. She would be aware, for example, that there are 17,000 known species of trilobites and thousands upon thousands of trilobite fossils, all sorted within the fossil record. A variety of dating methods has also determined that trilobites became extinct 250 million years ago. This knowledge makes it highly questionable that the fossil found by the passer-by was found in situ (a word you don't seem to like for some reason, but which is important nonetheless because fossils not found in their original positions need to be carefully studied in order to avoid erroneous dating). What's more, the fossil appears to show a great deal of weathering, which makes no sense if it had been buried in the soil all that time. All of this evidence points to a fossil which was eroded from its original position in the rock and which re-joined the earth at some recent time. The links I gave illustrate other examples of reowrked fossils. Pollen is a very common one because it is so ubiquitous.
Neither you nor your "refutation" have demonstrated that one single fossil on that list actually was reworked. You have made it very clear that you wish this to be the case, and are willing to accept on faith that it actually happened. But where's your evidence?

Quote
You and SoSick need to realise that while anomalies can be very instructive, they need to be established first as true anomalies. That means they need to be tested for other possibilities that would explain their "anomalousness" before the conclusion is jumped to that they necessarily overturn a major theory. In the case of the trilobite fossil, it's also possible that the scientist would have a look at it and patiently point out that it's not a trilobite at all, but another much more recent marine fossil which looks similar.
Maybe SoSick & I aren't interested in your speculation. Your claim was that evopattern is perfect, 100%. I provided evidence that this isn't so. What evidence have you provided? A statement of hope that these things have been reworked or misidentified. Not all of us share your hope.

If you would support your claim of perfection in the evopattern, the ball is in your court. 236 balls, actually.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson