Evolution...

Originally posted by C Hess
You know, now that I've actually read your comment instead of just yawning through it, I
think I'd like to see some valid references to support your claim, otherwise I'll have to
assume you're not being entirely honest.

Here is a link, University of Chicago.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

hit Meet Tiktaalik and it shows a photo of the fossil and it is more than just the head, it also has the legs.

RJ just wants to falsify the whole idea of the intermediary form, which slaps in the face of creationism.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a link, University of Chicago.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

hit Meet Tiktaalik and it shows a photo of the fossil and it is more than just the head, it also has the legs.

RJ just wants to falsify the whole idea of the intermediary form, which slaps in the face of creationism.

The head is obviously the skull of an alligator, not a fish. It is apparent that he attached the skeleton and fins from other animals to make up his missing links like evolutionists are known to do. The guy that found it admits, on a youtube video, he did not find what he claims is the back end of it until years later. Here is a video of the artist interpretation of what it might have looked like from the faked fossil construction:

Tiktaalik roseae forgery

YouTube

The head no longer looks like a alligator from his imagined art work.

Originally posted by sonhouse
RJ just wants to falsify the whole idea of the intermediary form...

Well, I wish him/her good luck with that. 😕

Originally posted by C Hess
Well, I wish him/her good luck with that. 😕

Paranoia and fear of imaginative conspiracies are only symtoms or Alzheimer. And Alzheimer are progressing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The head is obviously the skull of an alligator, not a fish. It is apparent that he attached the skeleton and fins from other animals to make up his missing links like evoulotionists are known to do. The guy that found it admits, on a youtube video, he did not find what he claims is the back end of it until years later. Here is a video of the artist interp ...[text shortened]... com/watch?v=l_mpWQqNBIk

The head no longer looks like a alligator from his imagined art work.

You're making two mistakes. You seem to imply that the artist is the one who decides
whether the fossil constitutes a transitional form or not. Of course, fossils speak for
themselves, and it's the paleontologists that has the proper training to dig them out and put
them together correctly. You also seem to think that there's this great conspiracy going on
in scientific circles where the "oh so evil darwinists" attempt to push their evolutionary
agenda on people. You have to ask yourself what would be the point of that, and also ask
yourself if that's even possible. For minor hypothesises a fake or mistake may linger for
some time, but when many different scientific branches (confirmed by their individual
successes) depend on the findings of a specific branch, fakes and mistakes are quickly
identified as such, since predictions will fail or data won't add up. This is the very reason
why the scientific endevour has been so successful, so far.

Originally posted by C Hess
You're making two mistakes. You seem to imply that the artist is the one who decides
whether the fossil constitutes a transitional form or not. Of course, fossils speak for
themselves, and it's the paleontologists that has the proper training to dig them out and put
them together correctly. You also seem to think that there's this great conspiracy goin ...[text shortened]... 't add up. This is the very reason
why the scientific endevour has been so successful, so far.

I am not implying that the artist decides that what he is given is a transitional form of fish. He gets that information from the evolutionists. It is the artist's job to give it a real life appearance, just like the artist did to the caveman and his family from what turned out to be the tooth of a pig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not implying that the artist decides that what he is given is a transitional form of fish. He gets that information from the evolutionists. It is the artist's job to give it a real life appearance, just like the artist did to the caveman and his family from what turned out to be the tooth of a pig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

In your link we can all read that "Hesperopithecus was regarded as an inconclusive find by a large portion on the scientific community."
Meaning that scientists doesn't cover for eachother. There are rotten eggs in the bowl of scientists, no doubt, but they are soon discovered by other scientists in a scientific manner. That's why Science works. Scientists check eachother.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not implying that the artist decides that what he is given is a transitional form of fish. He gets that information from the evolutionists. It is the artist's job to give it a real life appearance, just like the artist did to the caveman and his family from what turned out to be the tooth of a pig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

What fabian said.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not implying that the artist decides that what he is given is a transitional form of fish. He gets that information from the evolutionists. It is the artist's job to give it a real life appearance, just like the artist did to the caveman and his family from what turned out to be the tooth of a pig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

So how many more 100 year old hoaxes or fakes do you have on tap?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So how many more 100 year old hoaxes or fakes do you have on tap?

All of them are hoaxes.

Originally posted by RJHinds
All of them are hoaxes.

How would you know, you don't enough science to know that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
All of them are hoaxes.

So T-Rex is a hoax?

If you see a video of a big bone buried in a cliff and the archaeologist digs it out right on camera, that is a hoax?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So T-Rex is a hoax?

If you see a video of a big bone buried in a cliff and the archaeologist digs it out right on camera, that is a hoax?

I am referring to all the hoaxes to make up the missing links. Where did he T-Rex come from? Where is the missing links? They are still missing, right?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am referring to all the hoaxes to make up the missing links. Where did he T-Rex come from? Where is the missing links? They are still missing, right?

Every fossil represents a link. You don't need every single individual that ever
lived fossilised, to see the progression of changes over time.

Originally posted by C Hess
Every fossil represents a link. You don't need every single individual that ever
lived fossilised, to see the progression of changes over time.

I did not say one needs every individual that lived to be fossilized. I am referring to the "missing links" that show that one kind changed to another kind. Darwin said they would be found, but they haven't been found.