This is actually dishonest, going back through posts, you will see links given to you, quotes given to you with references. Not everytime, but many times and I've seen things repeated ad nauseum also. You yourself have not exactly given back ups to all the info in your posts either. I missed some of your info from your posts because Linda, you love to address lots and lots of things in long winded posts, knowing full well that not everybody can go through it all and satisfy you with a detailed answer. Bombardment its called. The amount of different stuff you'll throw into one post is ridiculous, seriously. Go have a look at your post, the geologic column will be thrown up, the flood, the ark, the grand canyon, fossils, anything and everything. How very easy to throw all this into one post, sit back and rub your hands whilst other people have to work their way through it and try to answer "which POINT?". You yourself have complained about this previously. Linda, put aside your personal hang ups about Dr Kent Hovind and DEAL WITH THE ISSUES convincingly presented on his classic tape "LIES IN THE TEXTBOOKS" , where all of these things you mention are EFFECTIVELY dealt with. Why do you suppose that his offer of 250,000 US, for ONE convincing proof for evolution remains unclaimed. If he is such a scientific ignoramus and is simply an idiot as you claim, why is it he is willing to debate more than one evolutionist at a time? Yet very rarely do any of them take up his offer? Please don't use the ongoing excuses to discredit him personally by referring to him as an idiot. The issues are the key and it should be very easy for any evolutionist (particulary when more than one is debating him) to make him look like the idiot you claim he is. Yet, they can't.

Any fossil evidence the evolutionist finds in his/her mind WILL be a transitional form, rather than another example of variety within a kind. It is simply an opinion Linda and this is all I see from the links you give me, just their interpreations to make the fossil an earlier form of what we see today, rather than another variety. Whatever is missing off those fossils, can be pretty significant and should not be privy to the manipulation by the evolutionist. There are so many variations of animals of every kind, that when you consider marine life alone, it is vast. Because a mammal like a whale lives souly in the water, or a seal can live in both, do you suggest these must have evolved? Can you NEVER accept an animal or mammal for exactly what it is? This is the problem, the evolutionist has already decided it's an earlier form of the animal, rather than considering it maybe another variety of marine life - the fact that Crocodiles can walk out of the water and swim in the water does not mean crocs every did anything different or ever WILL do anything different and if you found a fossil resembling a croc, but without legs, perhaps you'd say that this is the same animal and it's simply evolved legs? Once again, I say you do NOT know this. Whales cannot live out of water. Does this mean any animal that resembles a whale in anyway, but had any legs actually lost those legs later and became what it is today? Do you EVER consider different varieties of animals for what they are? There are so many animals today of different varieties, with or without legs, it makes no sense to say they lost their legs because..... or they gained legs because....... It is down to "Im bias, I cannot accept any animals for what they are, so they will be transitional forms because I say so", rather than different varieties of marine life. You've already formed an opinion. So if you dig up an animal that may have become extinct, will it instead be an earlier form of an animal that it resembles today?

HEre is the problem, interpretation of data fits within the bias of those interpreting it Linda. You are bias yourself. Here is a comment that is clearly evident of this bias.



Yet, notice your faith in evolution, even though there is actually no conclusive evidence, just interpretation. We actually do not know if any animal was anything else, other than what it is. You cannot just dig up a fossil and decide "oh this must be an earlier form of a whale"....ever thought it's another variety of mammal? You guys are incapable of thinking anything else because you WANT evolution at all costs. Nobody knows that anything has been anything else. Fossils tell you one thing linda, "they died". Do you know if the fossil had any offspring? Did the fossil wake up and say "I'm 300 millions years of age, I lost these legs later on when I decided I didn't need them anymore". Or is it the evolutionist putting words in the mouth of the fossil and filling in the gaps himself? I think so! Frankly Linda, the past hoaxes do not give evolution much credence and your faith in them today shows that this does not even make you consider the games they are capable of playing or what they will do to fit anything into their preconceived ideas. Fossils don't prove a thing, other than it lived once and it died. They are the ones saying it became something else, it lost this or it gained this. The fossil itself doesn't actually have any say in the matter, it's a transitional form whether it likes it or not, because the evolutionist said so. Not actually a variety of animal in its own right.

The links ARE missing Linda - you talk about my apparently outdated quotes and it is interesting that one of the fathers of the evolution belief "Charles Darwin" was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:

"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

Is it any different in todays times? Dr Colin Patterson (1933 - 1998), senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, worote a book Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms (;) which I have yet to see Linda, sosick's photos have more credence than the cartoons and quotes you have so much faith in) He wrote:

"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.....I will lay it on the line - there is not ONE such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument".

By the way, the comment about the "author's fasination in having s*x with them reflects the games you play on here. Talk about deliberately taking it out of context to hit back. Fasination? Hmmm, I don't think I have mentioned it before, was a pretty small paragraph too and simply stated the obvious.

So, you think we're a unique being now? That we aren't really advanced apes, but we evolved from a common ancestor and we're just "unique" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Yes, we most definitely are unique, at least you've admitted that. Funny how you can make the transition of beast and human when it suits. One must wonder what made human beings what we are today, and the apes what they are? I wonder who or what this common ancestor was......and if you dig anything up, be it resembling ape or human or variety of either, will they tell you? Or will you simply speak for the dead?

Linda, all breeders do is select from the information ALREADY PRESENT

So I'll simply turn this around. Again, no evidence for evolution or against Creation <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Very simple.