Heaps of Fossils From Evolutionary ‘Big Bang’ Discovered

[activa8tr]

"Since its discovery in 1909, the Burgess Shale has yielded many thousands of fossils dating to 505 million years ago — a period often called “evolution’s big bang,” when animals were exploding in diverse body plans. These soft-bodied critters scurried around on the sea floor, then were buried in mudslides and exquisitely preserved."

...

"Until now, paleontologists had thought one reason the Burgess fossils were so well preserved was because they settled in thick deposits at the bottom of an ancient ocean protected by a submarine cliff. But the Stanley Glacier fossils weren’t formed in the presence of such a cliff, suggesting that creatures can be fossilized in amazing detail in other environments."


Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/new-shale-site/#ixzz0yCFsRTzE

More damn scientific discovery to drive the Creationists crazy!!!

Very interesting paleontology for those who like this stuff.

[jberryhill]

1. "More damn scientific discovery to drive the Creationists crazy"

You mean... "More proof that a lot of animals drowned in Noah's flood."

You underestimate the power of teh stupid.

[pipi_k]

3. And if they don't attribute it to the Great Flood...

they'll find some other stupid reason for it.

Then things will be peachy once again in Fantasy Land...

:+

[jberryhill]

4. They have a bunch of stupid reasons

People who think that fossils are a challenge for creationists, just don't understand creationists.

Creationism is not a theory of anything. It is a collection of rationalizations for why science is wrong. Some of the rationalizations are quite sophisticated, which is why they love to "debate" people who aren't familiar with their bag of tricks.

[annabanana]

5. HE put them in there to confuse us and test our faith. .

[pipi_k]

9. Oh yeah, I've seen some of the rationalizations...

but eventually they'll run out of debate strategies for some of their "best" ones...

They'll be busy little beavers while they're dreaming up rationalizations for any new ones they have to use as updated scientific information becomes available...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. No they won't.

They just keep recycling the same old arguments. They have been for 150 years now.

[activa8tr]

6. Actually, I was referring to the 500 million years age of the fossils, but

of course, I must be stupid to believe in the various carbon and argon and other isotopic dating techniques which compliment each other with actual verifiable testing.

I was told yesterday (not here) that because Pluto was found not to be a planet, SCIENCE IS NOT BELIEVABLE!!!!!

[jobycom]

10. There is no reason to assume that just because carbon 14 decays at a steady rate that

it decayed at the same steady rate 6000 years ago when the Earth was created, doncha know?

[jberryhill]

12. Carbon dating isn't used at this range

[opihimoimoi]

2. This is bad news for them Baggers who suck for creationism

but then....ig is bliss...and dangerous

[activa8tr]

7. I'm willing to bet that 3 our of 5 baggers are Young Earth Creationists and

that the other 2 out of 5 just haven't made up their minds yet, so answer "Don't know/ not sure" to the question.

But almost 5 out of 5 (99.9%) baggers believe Obama is not a natural born American, and secretly Muslim, too, besides being a socialist, which is unanimous for baggers.

[opihimoimoi]

13. Such is Delusion...a by product of a Negative Polarity....Evolution gives us good odds the POSITIVE

POLARITY MODE is best...

Baggers exhibit Neg Signs and basic philosophy...they have uphill battle....this time Dems have more and better weapons

[RainDog]

8. kick - interesting article!

science hates beckkkerheads

[Warren DeMontague]

11. la la la la LA LA LA LA LA LA LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

[Scurrilous]

14. Thanks.

:thumbsup: