Either you are being deliberately dense or you honestly think that someone has found an INTACT trilobite.To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body.
That has never happened.
What _MAY_ have happened is a _FOSSIL_ find which such clarity that it allows people to see the IMPRESSION left by soft body parts. That does happen, rarely. It doesn't require some fluke of physics. It just requires extremely fine grained material in which the creature is fossilized.
Having not read all your posts, I'm going to make the assumption that you are trying to argue that evolution is false.
Here's the problem with your argument:
- The dating methods which confirm evolution are based in _OTHER_ sciences which are INDEPENDENT of evolution.
In other words, for evolution to be wrong the fossil record has to be wrong. For the fossil record to be wrong, the DATING methods which confirm the fossil record must be wrong.
However, since the fossil record is confirmed by the following sciences:
- Geology, Nuclear Physics, Chemistry, Volcanology, etc.
Then EACH of these sciences must LIKEWISE be wrong, not just partially but IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
And since other dates provided by these sciences have been confirmed by:
- BOTANY, METEROLOGY, ASTRONOMY, LINGUISTICS, HYDROLOGY...
Then these sciences must LIKEWISE be false _IN THEIR ENTIRETY_
So, basically this whole argument comes down to this:
Either a story made up by goat herders 4000+ years ago is ABSOLUTELY !00% TRUE and therefore ALL OF SCIENCE is wrong.(meaning nothing you own actually exists, etc).
- OR -
The goat herders 4000+ years ago were writing ALLEGORICALLY and their story is supposed to convey MEANING not FACTS, And the rest of science is right (meaning everything you own actually exists.)
Which of these seems more likely to you?
Which of these would seem more likely to a rational person?