Quote:

---

I have a question for you. The morphology of the horse doesn't really fit in very well with other animals. I mean, in a more general slide show you've got arms, wings of creatures that all look fairly similar in design (bats, primates, humans, etc). Then horses pop out of nowhere with their strangely designed arms, and you get told its like that, just because that's what the horse needs. Well, if the slideshow of life is so important to you, then how come its not important when a creature doesn't fit this slideshow?

---

What exactly do you mean with 'doesn't fit the slideshow' here? There are all kinds of different animals that wouldn't fit your slideshow then... Take for example the billions of insects, bugs and more specialistic creatures like the cameleon;
()

Your distinction is artificial, you can't deny that those creatures do exist. Thinking of one of them as being a bit odd or strange/not fitting is silly, what makes them not fit into the slideshow? The lack of 'missing links', intermediate forms etc. is a non-argument, there are plenty of those available... And you shouldn't forget a lot of species have died out from which the new species are still walking around, so we may very well see common features between a goat and a cow, yet the direct link inbetween might be vague. That's still no prove of the contrary in my opinion, and this would be when we would entirely ignore the fossils. About the bones thing you brought up, from most species that already have died out, there's not really much more left then bones, from which still a lot can be derived. Definately more than just size and weight . I'm not sure what you've meant with 'dressed in more than just bones', but suppose you mean colors and other features of the animals that are not similar, they all use the same content, just in different sizes, small differences in shapes and forms and more. So what? There are plenty of pencils made by us, we all can distinguish them rather easily as pencils, you know why? Keyfeatures and things a pencils would need to have in order to be called a pencil. Why wouldn't this work the same with things that are defined yet as such, but who do share a lot of similarities? You imply it's illogic, I think it's perfectly reasonable.

Quote:

---

You assume that there is no question to the accuracy of the dating methods. When they give an unexpected date, it must be contaminated. Much like coal. They still can't figure out why coal has 14C in it, and yet it can't have 14C in it because coal takes millions of years to form. So they'll do whatever it takes to find that evidence.

---

Quote:

---

1. New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add "modern" 14C to coal are:

* Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
* Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
* Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.

Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure.

---

Quote:

---

Since we never see things appearing out of nowhere, then tell me why your example even matters now.

---

Sorry to bring this up, but.. irony...

Cheers