(November 20, 2009 at 10:00 am)Darwinian Wrote: I started with Fossil Records because, well, I like fossils. Trouble is I only got a few paragraphs down before I got fed up with it. Why? Because it was so full of errors and faulty premises and logical inaccuracies that a child could spot there seemed very little point in reading the rest.
The author seemed to be having trouble with there being no trilobites and lobsters together in the fossil record during the Cambrian era and wondering why, if they lived together are they not fossilised together.
His actual question was...
"Why would creatures that would seem to share the same general environment while alive be so widely separated in the fossil record if they did indeed live at the same time and in pretty much the same location?"
The answer is because they didn't live during the same time. Trilobites appeared during the Cambrian and Lobsters appeared during the Cretaceous. What's so hard to understand about that?
Now there is an open mind. You run into one thing that has another possible answer and conclude the author is wrong and it is not worth your time. That is certainly your prerogative. But could it be that your own bias, assumptions and presuppositions are kicking in and not allowing you to look at the entire case being made with an open mind? Maybe you don't even recognize your own bias in reading such material (or maybe you do??) The facts are the facts. The question really is which interpretation is more consistent with all the facts. Certainly one argument is not enough to make a valid case on either side because some facts do seem to fit one interpretation better while other facts seem to fit the other interpretation better.
