Talk:Fossil record

message: I think "...   these artifacts and their placement in rock formations ...", artifacts in the orginal article sounds a bit man made, could anybody with an English mother tongue evaluate the original sentence, thanks.
I agree with the previous comment that creationist views, should go into the Creationism article
--------------
I think NPOV doesn't require 50% of the article to be about Creationism. Perhaps the creationist objections to the fossil record should go into the Creationism article. (They merit at least a link here, though.) --Ed Poor
Yes, there is currently far too much about creationism here - it's supposed to be an article about the fossil record, not about creationism. It also uses the term "Sudden Creationism", which you admitted that you made up. --Zundark, 2002 Jan 8
----
the following was removed from the page:
However, a few scientists and many non-scientists reject the authenticity of the fossil record, primarily on religious grounds. Those who accept ..., for example, completely reject the fossil record as evidence of evolution.
Not all Creationists reject the fossil record. The Intelligent Design theory, for example, embraces both the fossil record and natural selection, but says that speciation happens through God's intervention.
Therefore, the matter of the fossil record provides a clear but often overlooked distinction between the principal schools of thought within Creationism.
----
One does not have to be a creationist to wonder at the gaps in the fossil record.  Where, for example, are the intermediate stages between horses and rhinos?  We see a long distinguished fossil record for horses, and a long distinguished fossil record for rhinos, with probably dozens or hundreds of examples of either.  But where are the missing links?  It is just not mathematically probable that if we started with a 1,000,000 horses, 1,000,000 rhinos and 1,000,000 intermediates, we would have 100 horse fossils, 100 rhino fossils and 0 intermediate fossils.  Nor does it seem tenable to me to argue that the transition took place so rapidly that the probability of a fossil's being left was 0.  Nor is a macromutation credible.  I am 100% atheist and can see no other possibility than that the theory of evolution is true, but I cannot accept it without reservation unless I hear a more reasonable explanation of the sketchy fossil record.
: What on Earth are you talking about? Who ever said that there should be transitional fossils linking "horses" to "rhinos"? --JPotter 20:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully you can understand you've just answered your own question. --JPotter 23:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Could persons who consider that creationism is not sufficiently notable to be mentioned, indicate their reasoning, instead of starting an edit war. 80.189.215.95 13:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I see only one edit warrior. Creationism has its own raft of articles, why does it need linking from here? Seems a ploy by POV pushers to maximize exposure. Still hold the added bit is irrelevant to the subject. And the absurd holocast denial bit in your edit summary was ridiculous. Also, why not get a user name, I dislike talking to an ip address. --Vsmith 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: The section listing the radiometric methods ends with carbon 14 and a caveat about the length of time carbon 14 is useful. While this is true, a quick reading may give the false impression that all the dating methods are thus limited. Either we should remove that bit or add the dates that each of the methods cover. Nowimnthing 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Removed same. --Vsmith 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: carbon 14

message: has anyone brought up merging this with Fossil? I think it would probably benefit both pages. Nowimnthing 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a merge. --Vsmith 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree as well, a merge would help both articles. JPotter 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support Would greatly enhance the fossil article. Aeon Insane Ward 12:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three days, 6 people in support (here and at fossil), no oppostion, I think I will go ahead and do the merge. It may need quite a bit of cleanup after so feel free to give me a hand. Nowimnthing 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: Some things which are not mainstream science are nevertheless not inconsistent with science itself. Any claim that creationism is inconsistent with the evidence in the fossil record is hard to justify as some creationist theories are consistent with the fossil record eg God made it look like it was old. The reason these theories are rejected by scientists is that they are untestable, invoke an unnecessary unexplained phenomenon (God), and make no useful predictions which can be tested ie not because they are inconsistent with experiments. Stephen B Streater 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream science vs scientific