oh_noes wrote on Dec 8th, 2009 at 8:00am:So I decided to watch that video and I have a few critiques. You might need to remove it.
First, you address the rarity of fossils. Well, lets look at it.
The claim is that fossils are rare. You dispute it, and read out a quote from a paleontologist who says there are hundreds of millions of fossils in cases in museums.
"How complete is the fossil record? Michael Denton, a medical doctor and biological researcher, writes that "when estimates are made of the percentage of [now-] living forms found as fossils, the percentage turns out to be surprisingly high, suggesting that the fossil record may not be as bad as is often maintained" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 189).
He explains that "of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates [mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians] 261 or 79.1 percent have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8 percent" (Denton, p. 189)."
Basically this shows that fossilization is not rare. And that with nearly 88% of the non birds vertebrates, we should see these transitional fossils, but we don't. They are the same as they are today in some cases 125 million years mosquito in amber, 70 million years for the opossum with no morphological changes in to a new genus. 50 million for several species including the crocodile. If 50 million years is not enough time with enough "pressure" to change, then what is?
Basically, there is no evidence for any evolution at all in the fossil record. Most of it is messed up by belief and forced categorizing with no DNA.
You cannot trust anyone who makes up crap and calls it science. Since the who fossil record and the "tree of life" is bovine garbage made up fantasy, with no DNA to link old peices of rocks with no organic matter in them, it is against the "rules" of science for these fools to call it evidence or to make any sort of organized chart of these unknown creatures.
Just looking and comparing is not a testable for of science. Without any means to use the "scientific method" on those rock fossils, you have to discard the whole thing as absolute evidence.
What part of "Not Proven, Don't Believe" is so difficult for you? As soon as you believe in things that you can't understand, you are religious and not rational.
I did not say "might understand" or "could understand". I said it is impossible for you to know exactly what any fossil was without scientific evidence that is testable and repeatable.
This makes all believers in Evodelusionism, religious mystical nut jobs who's only understanding comes from brainwashing into a cult religion.