Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

Research? Ohh, I get it...what you meant to say was "should I tell you about all of the presuppostions that were made first in order to interpret what fossils actually mean...in the surrounding areas where they were found".

That revision wasn't pretty, but it was more accurate

What I find most interesting about your position regarding the fossil record is just how wildly inconsistent it is with your other positions, if you'd taken even a second to think about it.

You understand that morphology is a perfectly valid method of determining the relationships between organisms, right? The more physically similar one animal is to another, the more genetically similar they're likely to be too, something that has been well established by the near uniform results of genetic sequencing. As you keep yammering, dogs breed dogs, which naturally entails that dogs breed organisms with similar morphological features. Your entire position is literally that phrase and yet somehow, when we get to the fossil record and use the exact same morphological observations to come to the same conclusion you keep repeating ad nauseum... it's a presupposition.

How do you know that dogs breed dogs? How can you tell that the thing a given dog gave birth to is, in fact, a dog? Well, you can tell by just looking, can't you? The physical characteristics of the animal are consistent with the kinds we see on the animal called a dog.Why do you put wolves in the same "kind"? Same deal, right? Morphologically similar, therefore genetic relationship. But that exact same reasoning leads us to believe that fossils which share morphological similarities are related too. It's only consistent; if you disregard the utility of morphology with regards to fossils, then you have no reason to use it among living animals either. For all you know, dogs don't breed dogs at all, they just breed morphologically similar new "kinds" out of nothing.

Or are we now going to acknowledge that the way we determine the grouping of animals is either the way they look or their genetics? And if so, how do you resolve the double standard of accepting this when convenient to you, and rejecting it whenever it disagrees with what you want to be true?

Of course, there's much more than simple morphology that demonstrates evolution, like how the fossil record is a precisely ordered layering of organisms that is consistent with evolution but shows no indication of any sudden creation or kinds, but it's just interesting to me how hypocritical you're willing to be in your argumentation.