1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Esquilax]

Like what data? When scientists date a fossil, they get outlying dates millions or sometimes hundreds of millions of years apart. They pick the date that closest matches their pre-drawn Evolutionary tree. In short, they make a presupposition.

There's more than one way to date a fossil, and all of them have shown their accuracy.

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. There can be more than one way to explain and interpret the present facts. How do you choose? By presupposing. Creationism also explains the facts.

Of course creationism explains the facts: magic can explain anything. It's a panacea, a shrug you give when you can't be bothered actually looking for evidence, and in all of recorded human history it has always been the wrong answer for every question at hand. Not to mention, you can't demonstrate it, while you can do so for evolution.

How is this not a contradictory statement?

Because it's the truth? Sorry if you've misinterpreted what evolution is, but that's hardly my fault. The changes that evolution produces will always be small, small enough for the organisms to continue to maintain a breeding population; there's never going to suddenly be a dinosaur that lays a finch egg. Archaeopteryx is an early bird, but its morphological similarities with dinosaurs are what make it an example of transitional species. That's literally the definition; an organism from one species exhibiting a clear chain from an earlier one.

There are no transitional species leading to or from the Archaeopteryx. There is nothing to indicate that the Archaeopteryx is anything more than a unique bird, in the way that the platypus is unique. It stands alone, just as Creationism predicts.

None? None at all? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...s_to_birds

http://darwiniana.org/dinobirds.htm

All this is, is you sitting there and going "nuh uh!" without providing any evidence for your assertions, and in direct contradiction to the reams of it that I can provide.

You’re missing the point about finding a convincing transitional fossil. We’re not looking for features common to two classes—Creationism predicts that God would not be limited to creating organisms along strict class lines. We’re looking for two very similar but different species separated by strata. For example, one Archaeopteryx with feathers and an older Archaeopteryx with scales (of course, they would have different names).

Take a look at the chart in the second link I gave you there. There's multiple such organisms, replete with different names. There's also a list of them in the first link too.

You admit you make that statement on a presupposition. Look at the Tikltaalik’s discovery this way. Scientists, as of 2006, know exactly where to look for a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods—no higher than the 365 mya strata. And they still haven’t found one of what should be millions.

Wrong again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra..._tetrapods

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_04

Take a look at that exceedingly well mapped list of fish to tetrapod transitionals. Oh, and finding them in strata other than what they might predict only modulates the date at which such evolution occurred, it doesn't cast the entire process into doubt.

And where did I admit to a presupposition, exactly?