That is how evolutionist want interpret those fossils…its pure speculation.
I won’t challenge it all. Yes, people look at evidence and speculate. And yes it’s a puzzle. And everyone gets a go at solving it.
Some speculation fits the evidence so well that they form theories from them.And the theories (despite what you have been told) make predictions. Such as the positive prediction ‘if this feature appears in this organism we would expect it to appear in this other organism’. And the negative ‘if mammals appeared after dinosaurs then we won’t find fossils of both from the same era’. And ‘if the fossil record indicates a close relationship then the dna match will be a closer match than if it didn’t’. And so on.
The theory that fits the evidence best is the front runner. And will remain so until a better one comes along. One that explains the evidence in a more detailed manner and makes better predictions.
If you have a better scientific theory than the one we are discussing, that is, if it does better than the ToE at explaining things then you become the front runner.
It also must be pointed out that most of what is posted by the usual suspects is nothing but a variation on: ‘I don’t believe that could have happened…therefore it didn’t’. Closely followed by very detailed analysis of small aspects of some aspect or other of the evidence and trying to prove there is a problem. Which is NOT challenging the theory in any way. What that does, if it was shown that there could indeed be a problem (which almost always there isn’t) is putting forwards arguments for why the theory doesn’t apply to
that specific piece of evidence.
As I said, the theory stands until something better comes along. So if one wishes to claim that it is not applicable to (for example), the formation of the eye, then the question everyone must ask is this:
If eyes did not appear by virtue of the scientific theory of evolution, then what scientific theory do you have that will explain them?
At this point, all we have is a theological answer. Which is fine if we were having a theological debate. But we are not. It’s a debate on a scientific theory. Period. So may I humbly make a suggestion. Instead of asking loaded questions about the ToE or making denigrating scomments about posts that people have spent a great deal of time preparing and writing, you do something positive. And that is, offer up your explanation as to why the world is as it appears now
If you have a scientific explanation (which can include or exclude God as you see fit), then you are part of the discussion. If you have a theological explanation, then really…you are in the wrong thread.
