Posted: May 05, 2010 4:16 pm
PJG wrote:I have stated that IF there is evidence that is not consistent with the official story and there does appear to be some, then this should be researched further as all evidence that does not "fit" with a theory is. The idea that a "fossil rabbit in the Cambrian" would be ignored because its existence would not "undermine a well-established theory" is just nonsense. Mr. Shermer's comment appears to be a case of special pleading when it comes to "conspiracy theories".
No, because a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian (you didn't even get that quote right) is not an unexplained anomaly, it is something much more; it is something that can neither be predicted nor accommodated by evolution. This is not the same as unexplained anomalies. Every controlled scientific experiment you read about in Science or Nature most likely has unexplained anomalies, but if you look at the bigger picture, you will see that these are not really relevant.
But please, stop your passive aggressive tactic of being opressed (no one is buying it) and tell us what would disprove your position. Stop squirming. Describe what would disprove your position or admit that your belief is unfalsifiable.