Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Cyberman]

If Jesus told you that we descended from earlier primate ancestors in central Africa, I might actually be tempted to take him seriously because it's evidence he isn't a total fraud.

If Jesus said that then I would of believed Him.

So what matters to you is not whether something is true but the authority of the person saying it?

Congratulation - you are fully deserving of the title "sheep" you gave yourself.

And it's "have", not "of". You would try the patience of saints.

[Whateverist]

Do you know that most universities if a professor even hints that they believe in creationism that they will be brow beaten to the point where they will be forced to resign. Watch Ben Stein's movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.

That's because it is not possible to reasonably reject the theory of evolution. There would be no controversy if those with a fundamentalist religious indoctrination didn't experience so much cognitive dissonance in a world where so much information is readily available.

[Minimalist]

likely to take advantage of your ignorance

Now, there's a hole big enough to drive a truck through.

[SteelCurtain]

Do you know that most universities if a professor even hints that they believe in creationism that they will be brow beaten to the point where they will be forced to resign. Watch Ben Stein's movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.

This is because you don't get to dictate new rules for a centuries old game, then cry when no one will let you play.

The very definition of science is looking for natural explanations for observed phenomena. Creationism is claiming that God did it. It is not falsifiable, doesn't explain observed phenomena, can't predict future phenomena, and isn't supported by the preponderance of evidence. If you would care to refute ANY OF THESE CLAIMS, please do so.

If you try to publish papers in a peer reviewed scientific journal without following the rules, you get fired. Sternberg published Meyers' paper in a peer reviewed journal, without letting any associate editors review it. If he had done this with ANY PAPER, he would have gotten fired. You know why? Because men stake their academic credibility on being a peer in one of these magazines. That might not mean very much to you, but it means a lot to them. If something gets published in one of those journals, it means they, as the reviewing editors, signed off on it and could not falsify it. Sternberg published a paper promoting ID that they didn't even get to see.

Do you see what creationists, over and over again, have to do? They have to lie and cheat and use other people's names incorrectly to promote their message.
Here's another perfect example of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_N...ce_Allowed

Charles Darwin quotation issue[edit]
In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's book The Descent of Man:[28]

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the subsequent sentences in the book state:[28][71]

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.[71][72]

According to John Moore writing in the National Post:

Stein quotes from a passage in Darwin's writing that appears to endorse the notion that for a species to thrive the infirm must be culled. He omits the part where Darwin insists this would be "evil" and that man's care for the weak is "the noblest part of our nature." When I asked Stein about this on my radio show he deadpanned, "If any Darwin fans are listening and we have misquoted him, we are sorry; we don't mean to diss Darwin."[73]

And you, yet again, lie and misrepresent facts here. This is becoming a trend, huh?

[Cyberman]

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Can't we learn from the artful rendering of Nebraska Man? So now I have to buy into every rendering made from fossils that are supposed to be the missing link or a proof of a transitional organism? No, sir, no.

http://rdlindsey.com/flashfacts/Nebraska.html

I don't know if this has already been addressed; I've been afk for a few days and am only just catching up with the boards. However, since you brought up "Nebraska Man", it's only fair to get more of the whole story than that author chooses to share.

The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:

"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."

"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)

Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:

"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."

Gregory confirmed this in his article which correctly identified the tooth:

"The scientific world, however, was far from accepting without further evidence the validity of Professor Osborn's conclusion that the fossil tooth from Nebraska represented either a human or an anthropoid tooth." (Gregory 1927)

Identifying the tooth as belonging to a higher primate was not as foolish as it sounds. Pig and peccary cheek teeth are extremely similar to those of humans, and the specimen was worn, making identification even harder.

Creationists often ridicule the Nebraska Man illustration, of two humanlike but extremely bestial creatures, done by Amedee Forestier for the Illustrated London News (Smith 1922). They rightly point out that an animal cannot be reconstructed from one tooth. But the drawing was not a reconstruction and was never intended, or claimed, to be accurate or scientific, being based more on the Java Man fossil than on the tooth. Smith emphasized (the following quote was in both the main text and below the drawing) its speculative nature:

"Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted." (Smith 1922, emphasis added)

Osborn, who had named Hesperopithecus, was less impressed with Forestier's artistic efforts, and remarked that

"such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate." (quoted in Wolf and Mellett 1985)

Smith may have been the only major scientist who was enthusiastic about Nebraska Man's hominid status, but even he, in his 1927 book The Evolution of Man, was much more cautious than he had been in the ILN article. Although he stated that

"I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith 1927),

Smith also recognized that Hesperopithecus was "questionable", and admitted that

"The suggestion that the Nebraska tooth (Hesperopithecus) may possibly indicate the existence of Mankind in Early Pliocene times is, as I have explained in the Foreword, still wholly tentative. The claim that real men were in existence in Pliocene and Miocene times must be regarded as a mere hypothesis unsupported as yet by any adequate evidence." (Smith 1927)

Creationists often claim that Nebraska Man was used as proof of evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but this claim is apocryphal. No scientific evidence was presented at the trial. (Some evidence was read into the trial record, but even this did not refer to Nebraska Man.)

Nor is it true, as Ian Taylor (1995) has said, that the retraction of the original identification was not publicized and never made the headlines. Bowden (1981) similarly states that "Little publicity was given to the discovered error". In fact, The New York Times and The Times of London both announced the news (the NYT put it on the front page), and both also printed editorials about it (Wolf and Mellett 1985). Taylor's other claim, that the retraction was announced in the scientific literature in only four lines in the back pages of Nature, is almost correct (it was 16 lines) but highly deceptive, since it conceals the fact that a one and a half page article retracting the claim was printed in the prestigious journal Science (Gregory 1927). Moreover, Taylor should have known about this article, because it was referenced by the item in Nature to which he did refer.

Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).

What's particularly interesting is that you would have (not "of", you notice) had to scroll past this article and two others on your way down to Lindsey's "FlashFacts".

[Duke Guilmon]

---

Tiktaalik? I GOT THIS YOU GUYS!! WATCH OUT WE ARE GOING TO TRY SCIENCE!!


"Many species of living fish are known to breathe air as well as slither on their bellies, with the help of their pectoral fins, across large expanses of land (evolutionists call this “walking”). For example, the northern snakehead and the “walking catfish” (Clarias batrachus) are air–breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and “skip” along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins. The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and “walks” on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish."

The reason scientist don't say those fish are proof of evolution is because they weren't around before tetrapods. Also taxonomy says that tetrapod decend from lobe-fined fish,not ray-fined fish,which is what those walking fish are. Also walking isn't the the only trait of tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has a neck,ribs that are located on the sides of the vertabre instead of on the top and bottom of it , and ear notches which only appear on tetrapods. Is there a living fish with those tetrapod traits? Don't think so.1

"Most evolutionists look to crossopterygian fish for the ancestors of tetrapods—even though unlike many living fish, none of these fish are known to be capable of either walking or breathing out of water."

Except that you will name them later, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

"These fish have fleshy pectoral fins containing bony elements (considered similar to tetrapod legs). These similarities have prompted evolutionists to confidently declare that crossopterygians evolved into tetrapods."

Or you can look at the fossils you name that you use in a attempt to dismiss the evidence and think your audience is stupid to realize this.

"According to evolutionists, the crossopterygians flourished about 380 million years ago and all were once believed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. However, in 1938 a fishing trawler netted a fish in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar that was identified as a crossopterygian fish, previously known only from the fossil record as the coelacanth. Since then, dozens of living coelacanths have been discovered."

Ya because you know gravity never thought something and then it was shown wrong. Gravity has never been wrong ever. Accept those few times it was. Because you know science tends to change its mind when it is wrong,right? You know we are aloud to change unlike you because we know science isn't perfect but you claim that the bible is and you have to change one thing because its wrong then the bible is false,right?


"This came as a huge shock to evolutionists who assumed that the reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet, here they were very much alive—and swimming!"

Facepalm Strawman! They are lobe-fined fishes but not the ancestors of tetrapods but they shared a common ancestor. They shared a common ancestor thats it.2

"At the very least, evolutionists expected to observe some hint of walking behavior in the coelacanth, but nothing of the kind has ever been observed. Coelacanths have been observed swimming backward, upside–down, and even standing on their head but they have never been observed to walk on land or in the sea."

Maybe because they split off with tetrapods. Celocanths are actinistia, while tetrapods are rhipidistia.

"Since living lobe-fin fish have not met expectations, evolutionists have turned to other fossilized lobe-fins for the ancestors of tetrapods. Until recently, the most popular crossopterygian candidates for ancestors of tetrapods were Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys. Both of these fish, like the Coelacanth, have fleshy pectoral fins with bones. But according to Daeschler, Shubin, and Jenkins (Nature 440(7085): 757–763, April 2006)—the discoverers of Tiktaalik—these fish possess relatively few evolutionarily important similarities to tetrapods and that until now, “our understanding of major transformations at the fish–tetrapod transition has remained limited.”

Ya the existed as a transition between lobe-fined fishes and animals like tiktaalik. Why do you creationist use transitional fossils that transition into other transitional fossils and think it can disprove evolution? Facepalm Is there a fallacy for this?

"In the April 2006 issue of Nature, Daeschler, et al. reported the discovery of several fossilized specimens of a crossopterygian fish named Tiktaalik roseae in sedimentary layers in arctic Canada. They confidently declared that Tiktaalik “represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs.”
Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. Like nearly all bony fishes, these fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gills—all consistent with an entirely aquatic life style."

Ya it is a fish, so are tetrapods because you can't leave your evolutionary ancestry. Don't believe me, look at a taxonomic tree and try it. Also what about its neck,riv position, and ear notches.

"In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle."

Isn't brachiasarus's forelimbs more robust then its hind limbs? And is it not a tetrapod? Yes to both.3

"It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless."

Good job mentioning those tow fossils, should have known. Both inched on land to move, and both had the gills of fish, in fact acanthostega has a operculum.

"Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word."



Except this, good job Answers in Genesis, you have proven you can't play science right.

"Finally, what about the popular claim that Tiktaalik is the “missing link” between fish and tetrapods?
In their review article on Tiktaalik, Ahlberg and Clack (Nature 440(7085):747–749) tell us that “the concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative.” The authors concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”
Sadly, “unfounded notions” of this kind continue to be uncritically taught and accepted in the popular media and in our schools. Even more sadly, these unfounded notions have been used to undermine the authority of Holy Scripture."

Yes it is, and you have to lie just to ignore the tetrapod traits tiktaalik has(it has more tetrapod traits the fish traits anyway.) Looks like creationist can't find their inner fish.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...lking-fish

1. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html
2. http://tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922
3. http://www.livescience.com/25024-brachiosaurus.html

also

Well it looks like I'm going to get on creationist about Tiktaalik. Looks like they can't find there inner fish. The infamous (no) Answers in Genesis has a response to this. They were upset to see scientific minds laugh at them. So they attacked a newspaper article on it instead of a scientific paper. Wonder why? There are a few things the two authors said that made me laugh so i'll address them before I get to tiktaalik.

"The discovery of the fossil “Tiktaalik” has been one of the most-widely picked up pro-evolution media stories since the (in)famous 1996 claim eventually shown to be false that life had been found in a meteorite from Mars."

First they talk about life on mars being debunked. First off life on mars is still a mystery to scientist. Knowing creationist and how they put there faults on us so they can look even, they think when science talks about something new they are researching, they think they're saying it is proof for evolution. Well sorry to break it to you but no scientist has said that life on mars is proof of evolution. At best it would more support abiogenesis. Also there is still a debate on it. I for one have not accepted that life is on mars until there is a scientific consensus that says that it did. Even at the time of it's discovery they were still debating on weather its true or not.(1)

"Some paleontologists are even claiming that Tiktaalik has the potential to become another Archaeopteryx for any evolutionist wanting to cite an ironclad example of a transitional form."

I now have another thing I can debunk from your website, thanks answers in genesis your making this to easy.Thumbsup

"The reports say that the skeletons (supposedly 375 million years old and up to nine feet long) have fish characteristics such as fins and a gill, but also characteristics that, according to the Times, “anticipate the emergence of land animals—and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs … .”
This part is very funny. I love that in this part they mention two of tiktaalik's fish traits but then never name its tetrapod traits that show how its connected to amphibians,reptiles, and birds(get it). This is so that their cover isn't blown and they won't get caught lying for Jesus by there followers.

"No creationist to our knowledge has yet done a careful analysis on this fossil. Until one of our scientists or an adjunct AiG researcher has conducted a careful study, we will not issue a conclusive statement."

This has to be the funniest thing they have said on this article. Creationist don't want to look at the fossil for research. They want to look at it so they can go "I've seen the fossil there are no tetrapod traits about it." You guys don't care about looking at it you just want to make your lie look more credible. Nice try. Now on to tiktaalik.


"There is the coelacanth fish, found in the same geological system (Devonian it is called) as this Tiktaalik discovery, that also has lobe fins. These lobe fins were once thought to enable the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor (in fact it was, like “Tiklaalik,” once considered by evolutionists to be a type of transitional form). Later, it was determined that the coelacanth fins were used for better maneuvering through the water, and not for walking. The new creature uncovered in the Arctic might be something similar."

What's funny is that you guys don't give a source for this. Wonder why?Consider The regular coelacanth was never said to have done what tiktaalik has done. It has been said it was thought to be able to walk. But science doing what it does corrected that mistake. Also coelacanth is not like a lungfish and a tetrapod(2), which fairs much better. Also coelacanths were around before tiktaalik evolved.(3) Also never once did a hear a scientist say ever that coelacanths were a part of the collection of tetrapod transitional fossils. If you under stood science you would know that these lobed-fined fishes had a common ancestor. There was however another fish that had to deal with tetrapods. It may not have been with coelacanths or with tiktaalik but it comes in between. It was asteolepis(4), another transitional fossil connecting lobe-fined fishes with early tetrapods like tiktaalik.

"Also, there are other creatures (e.g., the Panderichthys) that are thought to be fish and yet appear to be similar in lobe and fin structure to Tiktaalik. In addition, the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are embedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages)."

There needs to be a word for the creationist act of using transitional fossil in an attempt to ignore other transitional fossils. Panderichthys existed before tiktaalik(4). Panderichthys shows a link between lobe-fined fishes and early tetrapods as well(5). Though it is correct that tiktaalik didn't walk like later tetrapods, however it did have fins that were much different then it's early ancestors(6). But I'm going to pour more salt on these creationist wounds and list some more of tiktaalik's tetrapod traits. It had a neck,ribs, a flat head, and ear notches. So tiktaalik did have fins but they were different from panderichthys and coelacanths. Quit lying for jesus.

"As we often state on this website, keep in mind that evolutionists and creationists have the same facts (e.g., fossils), but interpret the facts uncovered today differently in regard to the past. Because evolutionists want to discover transitional forms, when they find a very old fish with leg-bone-like bones in its fins, they want to interpret this as evidence that it is some sort of transitional creature. However, other fish seem to have the same sort of structure as stated above, and these bones are not constructed as one would expect for weight-bearing legs. It may be just another example of the wonderful design of our Creator God."
You guys made me laughLaughat,cryWeeping,and laugh again. We don't look at the same evidence. When science saw tiktaalik we truly examined it with a skeptical objective mind. That's also why you only looked at tiktaalik's fish traits. If you really looking at the same evidence then you would notice the tetrapod traits. Also if your god can make mismatch animals then why didn't he create catbug or the warners, so that when we see tiktaalik we can tell that it was just what god wanted to create? Why did your god make it so we would think evolution happens in the first place? Well there goes the god can't lie business.

"All they have actually found is a fish that is another example of a lobe-finned fish (one of which still lives today—the coelacanth) that has bones similar in position to those seen in the arm and wrist of land-walking creatures—except these structures support fins with rays in them, not digits like fingers and toes (and as has been stated, they are NOT connected to the axial skeleton)."

Great which fish. You left no source its like you just expect someone to read this and not check your sources. Also there are fossils that are fish and tetrapods. Talk origins gives some examples(7). You guys can't mention these though other wise your fans would learn that you're lying. I already explained coelacanths so i won't repeat my self on it. This is why you made me an atheist AIG and you earned my you made me an athiest awardSmartass.

"We will, however, continue to use words like “might” and “appear” until AiG can gain better access to the researchers’ findings and also study fossil fish that are similar to Tiktaalik. It is vital that we gather as much data as we can. At some time, we might discover (as was the case when closer examination revealed the really was no evidence of life on that Mars meteorite) that this fossil discovery has an alternative/better interpretation of the evidence."

To translate the first part in english, they're basically saying until we see the fossil in real life then walk away so we can tell you it has no tetrapod traits. I went over the mars thing as well so i won't repeat myself. There is already the best interpretation. It has been examined before. It has passed peer-review. What you are trying to say is to find a better excuse then the ones you already have.

"For the moment, we can confidently state that evolutionists have no examples of mutations or evolutionary processes that can lead to an increase in genetic information in a creature that would, for example, develop the appendage of a land animal from the fin of a fish (as would be required by molecules-to-man evolution). Evolution is stopped in its tracks at this point."

Really? I wish you creationist would stop making this empty and false claim. What about bacteria that became multi-celled(8), or the HeLa cells(9). This abstract shows what a beneficial mutation is.(10) Tiktaalik is a good fossil, I just explained why.

"This website has consistently demonstrated that fossil creatures are essentially the same (stasis), or have degenerated (lost information, the opposite of what evolution requires). This is predicted in the creation model (animals reproducing “after their kind”; Genesis 1:24–25). Also, creationists have shown that the evidence found in the fossil record is highly consistent with catastrophism (i.e., a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah in the book of Genesis)."

Your website has consistently lied. I hate liars. You lie so you can make money off of peoples delusions. Fossils will stay the same because they're dead. However when they were alive tetrapods could reproduce and pass on traits. Also evolution is only gaining. In evolution losing parts is some times the benefit. Evolution is a lot more then what you make it liars.(11) I already got you on your whole kind lie before. This is my prediction, the creation model is a lie used to trick and enslave the masses into giving you apologist money. Your religion will one day die at the hands of reality. And that day is coming,that's why your master Ken Ham is complaining about teens being atheist, because each generation coming is getting to smart for your BS. I don't care if it happens before I die or after.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ssing-link

1. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...-78138144/

2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v49...12027.html

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

4. http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fishfossils/...olepis.htm

5. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v45...07339.html

6. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

7. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html

8. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-...okaryotes/

9. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ce...a-cell.htm

10. http://www.genetics.org/content/176/3/1759

11. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_02

And don't try the foot prints because the paper even says that the foot prints are primitive.

" Has a distinct manus(hand) and pes(foot) prints of somewhat different size arranged in diagonal stride sequence. The animal is moving in a straight line and is not leaving a body drag. The prints are circular without digit impressions or displacement rims. A single,slightly larger print on the same slab shows a strong posterior displacement rim with digit marks."
You only read the abstract did you? You also said i was stupid as well, but i read the paper and you read the abstract. If you did you would know that was said. Don't call me stupid if you are going to lie and expect us to not research into this, why are not creationist we look into claims that people make.

Look up the pdf of this paper from nature.

And to claim it as debunking evolution would be a bad idea. Not every one agrees with the foot prints, and those that do are still questioning it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...king-land/

It is like those triassic period bird foot prints. Remember those? Course not if you did you would realize that it made creationist(and to be fair some scientist) look stupid.

---

We got a problem with Tiktaalik. According to this article the tracks of a tetrapod were discovered apx 20 million years BEFORE Tiktaalik. So, if he indeed he were a transitional fossil, he arrived too late to the party. Titaalik is a fish and worthy of a good ol' fish fry. Pass the tartar sauce.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tik...MssRw.dpuf
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tik...30621.html

I know you didn't read it because I addressed those foot prints at the end.

[Revelation777]

If Jesus said that then I would of believed Him.

So what matters to you is not whether something is true but the authority of the person saying it?

Congratulation - you are fully deserving of the title "sheep" you gave yourself.

And it's "have", not "of". You would try the patience of saints.

Thank you for helping me with my English. Yes, I am proud to be a sheep.

[The Valkyrie]

So what matters to you is not whether something is true but the authority of the person saying it?

Congratulation - you are fully deserving of the title "sheep" you gave yourself.

And it's "have", not "of". You would try the patience of saints.

Thank you for helping me with my English. Yes, I am proud to be a sheep.

[Esquilax]

Thank you for helping me with my English. Yes, I am proud to be a sheep.

I find it interesting that creationists like Ken Ham will derisively say "evolutionists think people came from monkeys!" as though being animals devalues our fundamental human dignity, but then they'll happily turn around and be all "I'm an unthinking sheep!"

[Cyberman]

@ Beccs: Is that a Love Ewe, by any chance?

So what matters to you is not whether something is true but the authority of the person saying it?

Congratulation - you are fully deserving of the title "sheep" you gave yourself.

And it's "have", not "of". You would try the patience of saints.

Thank you for helping me with my English. Yes, I am proud to be a sheep.

So what if I were to tell you that God appeared to me in a dream and told me he doesn't exist?