Nice try Linda. Evolutionists, when confronted by evidence that contradicts their theories (pictures of the fossils themselves) will find any means possible to vindicate their theory, producing not much more than ongoing, longwinded blatant denials/excuses or "explanations" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> . So your response here was expected and comes as no surprise. These pictures speak for themselves, and do not require your commentary to the contrary, though you obviously believe we do, just in case we might be convinced by the evidence.



Adaption to ones environment is simply "adaption" (e.g. thicker coat in the cold, shedding in the heat etc). We have been through this before on this forum. You've proven nothing here at all that contradicts design or proves that evolution has taken place. Certain traits can become emphasized in aiding survival, but from what we have observed, this also has limits and has not shown to cause one kind of animal to become another. All these things come from an existing gene pool. Life simply produces after its own kind, no matter what traits are emphasised, there are limits to biological change as we can and have observed. You can imagine or claim otherwise, but you need to give me an example that I am able to observe today, or at least in recorded history. Not the long distant unseen past. Or linking up extinct animals and pinning labels on them.

Where is the evidence for evolution in these fossils? Answer, you can't find any, so hence the need to revert back to impressing whilst digressing. Let's get back to the evidence of the fossils themselves and skip the evo babble. They've had millions of years to show us simplicity evolves into complexity, or changes we would expect from all that time ago...yet they' show no change and were as fully formed then as they are now. How far must we keep going back before we see evolution proven..? Is millions of years not enough? Somehow they were evolving before they fossilised right? and we just happened to miss those earlier stages. We just happened to "miss" the evidence <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.



Gosh, you really need to take off your ego-goggles and start looking at reality (there's another yawn inducer for you Linda). Please quit claiming no evidence, when you've been given photographic proof that these creatures have shown no sign of having evolved, even in the vast amounts of time they had to do so. These pictures have backed up every comment above and beneath them. You have given me no evidence at all to the contrary, just ongoing evolution interpretations with nothing to back it up. They don't do too well when faced with reality do they?



What example? Did I miss the reality pictures of the fossil evidences backing up these claims? Please point me to them if that is the case. I'll give some examples myself in case anybody is fooled. Please give time to download so you can view them in full, instead of skipping over them, or some of them.

E.g. here is a snake 50 million years old which again speaks for itself. (I do not agree with these million year old dates, but evolution does, so here it is).
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/vuqwddtbij.jpg">
One thing that evolutionists are at a loss to explain is the origin of reptiles. Between the various classes of reptiles, such as snakes, alligators, turtles and lizards, there are strict boundaries. The fossil record shows that each of these categories has come into existence at once, with very different physical characteristics. One of these proofs to deny that reptiles underwent evolution is the 50-million-year-old snake fossil shown in the picture above.

Here is a 120 million year old turtle - just as much of a turtle as a turtle is today.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/khxddyqfil.jpg">
''… the origin of this highly successful order is obscured by the lack of early fossils, although turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates. … Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, ... reptiles from which turtles [supposedly] sprang, are entirely lacking.'' (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, "Turtle")

Here we have a 65 million year old Crocodile, once again no change.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/lselcguvzh.jpg">
Darwinists maintain that marine life forms represent the ancestors of reptiles. According to this claim?which is uncorroborated by any scientific finding?fish left stranded without water were one day forced to emerge onto dry land, thus giving rise to reptiles. Yet not one single fossilized half-fish, half-reptile to support this scenario has ever been encountered. Among all the hundreds of thousands of fossils found so far, fish always appear as distinct fish, and reptiles as obvious reptiles. Every fossil discovered is identical to its counterparts alive today, or else belongs to a species that once existed, but has become extinct. One example is the 65-million-year-old fossil crocodile pictured, a proof that crocodiles have always existed as crocodiles.

Here is 125 million year old Salamander (with its counterpart).
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/gefqvfuepq.jpg">
This fossil salamander uncovered in China is the world's oldest known salamander. As a result of some sudden volcanic eruption, fossil remains are often very well preserved under a layer of ash, so well that it is even possible to detect some of their soft tissues and the last food they ate. These fossil salamanders are no different from those alive in our day. Amphibians that remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years once again demonstrate that evolutionists are wrong.

40 million year old frog:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kromnqzoqf.jpg">
The evolutionist scenario claims that fish, which evolved from invertebrates, later turned into amphibians capable of living on dry land. Yet as with all other evolutionary tales, there is no evidence for this scenario. Not a single fossil suggestive of any half-fish, half-amphibian has ever been found. On the contrary, all the fossils unearthed to date prove that fish have always existed as fish, and amphibians as amphibians. The 40-million-year-old frog fossil pictured proves that frogs have never altered in all that time—in other words, that they never evolved.

Here is 140 million year old bird - Cretaceous:
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/njfrxqibrx.jpg">
Yet another discovery that invalidates evolutionist claims regarding the origin of birds is the Liaoningornis fossil shown here. The existence of this bird, around 140 million years of age and first discovered in China in November 1996, was announced by the ornithologists Lianhin Hou, and Martin and Alan Feduccia in an article published in Science magazine. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the flight muscles were attached, as in present-day birds. It was also identical to birds living today in all other respects. The sole difference was that it had teeth in its jaw. This showed that odontornithes (toothed birds) by no means had the kind of primitive structure claimed by evolutionists. Indeed, in an analysis in Discover magazine Alan Feduccia stated that Liaoningornis invalidated the claim that dinosaurs constitute the origin of birds. (''Old Bird'', Discover, 21 March 1997.)

120 million year old bird and quite an embarrassment to evolution, check out the comments beneath.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/xrjpjzlkay.jpg">
The French scientific journal Science et Vie made the following comment regarding this bird, now known as Confuciusornis sanctus: "According to Chinese and American palaeontologists examining the fossil . . . they were dealing with a first class discovery. This flying bird, the same approximate size as a water rail, is around 157 million years old . . . older than Archæopteryx." (Jean Philippe Noel, "Les Oiseaux de la Discorde," Science et Vie, No. 961, October 1997, p. 83.) The significance of this discovery is obvious; the fact that Confuciusornis lived during the same period as a life form claimed to have been the supposed forerunner of birds—and the fact that it bears a very close similarity to present-day birds—totally invalidates evolutionists' claims. There are several structural differences between birds and reptiles, one of the most important of these being bone structure. The bones of dinosaurs—regarded by evolutionists as the supposed ancestors of birds—are thick and solid, making them very heavy. On the other hand, the bones of birds—both living and extinct species—are all hollow and thus very light, which is of great importance in their being able to fly. Another difference between birds and reptiles is their different metabolic rates. Reptiles have one of the slowest metabolisms of all life forms on Earth, while birds hold the highest. Due to a sparrow's very fast metabolism, for example, its body temperature may sometimes rise to as high as 48°C (118.4 F). Reptiles are unable to generate their own body heat, warming their bodies by basking in the sun's rays. Reptiles consume energy the slowest, while birds consume it the highest of all. Despite his being an evolutionist, Alan Feduccia strongly opposes the theory that birds and dinosaurs are related, on the basis of scientific findings. On the subject of the dino-bird evolution thesis, he has this to say: Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it . . . The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century. (Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It … Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28.)

Unfortunately Linda, no matter what link, no matter what excuses, explanations and cloaked denials you give, however impressive they may come across to the viewer, the pictures trample all over them. Why? Because they are a real testament, do not require lots of words as a smoke screen, and pretty much put responses to the contrary to shame.