Hi RAZD,

Thank you for your response and time/effort.



Do assumptions and bias interpretations equal evidence for transitional forms? Attempting to make out that the problems you're having with the bat evolution, is negated by all the other "evidences" you've apparently given is really relying on people believing it's a "done deal". This is mistaken and we have actually already addressed and debated the other examples of transitional forms you've set up here earlier on this forum. But unfortunately, they get buried again under new posts and the issue is then revived as though it was never discussed. Hence why CTD must continually refer people to using the scroll bar and reading the older posts on this forum.

One needs to consider that the fossil record shows the animals that we still have to this day (the ones that have not become extinct) are the same as they were then. Those whom have become extinct, should not automatically = transitional forms, simply because they're lost to our past. But unfortunately, for evolution? they are. Those with similar traits and appearance should not have to succumb to the same labelling tactics either, but for evolution? They do! There are numerous creatures today that share very similar qualities/appearance with others! Should any of those have been extinct, and were not observed in our times, you can guarantee they would have been placed into the same transitonal evolutionary senario as though they were primitive/inbetween one and the other, but on the way to the "modern day" versions of today. Can you imagine what the Platypus would have done to an evolutionist had it become extinct before we had observed it living alongside the many creatures it shares traits with? If shared/similar traits in one creature with others, means it is a transitonal form. Then what would they have attributed to the Platypus? Consider the following: It has a bill and webbed feet like a duck for swimming, claws for digging, lays eggs like a snake/bird, eggs like a reptile, has milk glands like a mammal, has fur and tail like a beaver, yet unlike most mammals, it keeps its testes safely inside its abdomen. I think this creature is like God's wink to evolutionists

The evolutionist cannot and will not accept any creature for being what it is. So extinct animals are sitting ducks (excuse the pun).

You've given one example of an ancient bat which you've then assigned the word "primitive" to it, due to it having longer limbs and more claws.

These traits MUST be "primitive" to the evolutionist, because the bat is older. However, since when does something older, means it was lesser/more primitive? Do longer legs and extra claws = more primitive? Bats put the claws and legs to good use when they cling to walls and hang upside down. Hardly primitive! But that's not the only problem. Since there are different species of bats around (some 900 species), how can you be certain it's not another species of bat?

E.g. (pictures below, please allow time to load).


Only 3 examples out of 900 alive today and RAZD thinks that a fossil of a bat with a few extras, means it's "more primitive"; without considering the MANY different species of that we have alive today, let alone how many there would be altogether (counting extinct).

http://fossil-museum.com/fossils/fosil.php?Id=410
Here is a fossilised bat - 50 millions years old (according to old age dating methods).

And here, approximately 54 millions years old:


http://visual.merriam-webster.com/animal-kingdom/flying-mammal/bat/skeleton-bat.php
Here is a modern day depiction of a bat skeleton:


No doubting the ancient fossil bats are as batty as their modern day counterparts



For anybody none the wiser? Here is the link provided in the post he's given above regarding his evidence for reptiles to mammals http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
Once again, what do we get when it comes to substance and clear evolutionary evidence? Not much more than a lot of words which are aimed at convincing the reader of their ideas/beliefs about our history, without substantial back-up. But how does this match up when it comes to the reality of the fossils themselves when you see them for what they were (and are), instead of a manipulated senario?

Let's take a look at ancient mammal and reptile fossils and see why there is not only no sign of transition occuring from one to the other, but they were STILL existing around the same time period fully formed and recognisable as they are today. Both separate kinds! Still no sign one is becoming anything else - other than what it has always been. Note: (also include the bat fossils above as an example also): (pictures below will take time to load, be patient):

A few examples of ancient fossilised mammals
Note: (Dated according to old age dating - http://fossil-museum.com/fossils/).

83 million year old Antelope skull:

80 million year old Bear skull:

37-23 million year old Deer skull:
95 million year old fox skull:

75 million year old Rhinosaurus skull:

80 million year old tiger skull:

Examples of reptiles .(dated according to old age dating methods - http://fossil-museum.com/fossils/).

37-23 million year old turtle:
120 million year old turtle:

50 million year old snake

65 million year old Crocodile:

144-65 million year old Crocodile:

100 million year old Crocodile:


And I'll throw in a frog for good measure. Just in case we get the amphibian senario too:
40 million year old frog:


Expect many excuses for why these ancient fossils defy the expected signs of evolutionary change/transition. (here are some examples of their kind of excuses)

"you do not understand Evolution"
"you just don't understand how evolution works"
"the pictures only show the man who stayed at home, not the man who walked around the world (analogy to prove some evolved, some didn't. Or at different rates etc and that it's just coincidence that all the fossils we see that haven't changed (much if at all) and were the ones that "stayed at home")
"they have evolved significantly, just because they don't show obvious external signs"
"They evolve at different rates"
"Evolution doesn't happen in the way you might imagine"

And you'll get more of the same. Even the excuses can differ from the other. Whatever excuse it takes to hopefully render one in a state of confusion and "maybe we just don't understand their theory". You will never understand a theory that continues to alter it's definitions according to the senarios. If they don't have their excuses what else do they have left? So the excuses continue and perhaps new ones will be added and improved upon.

If anybody wishes to go through the dinosaur to bird and horse evolution senarios with RAZD all over again, they are welcome. Since he was unable to prove any such senarios with dinosaur to bird and kept giving excuses when pictures of fossil birds (looking the same as the ones today) were given existing around the time as reptiles - with no signs of transition and existing just as they do today. No such luck and no such transitional has been found. Even the so-called transitional form they pull out, was existing around the sametime period as reptiles and fully formed birds that we see today. Still the excuses continued. Still can't prove skin/scales turned into feathers. They simply find similarities with a type of animal that shares traits with reptile and bird, therefore it MUST mean that birds came from reptiles. This animal will then become their "missing link". They do not even consider anything else.

Anybody else can go and do their own research and check out ancient fossil pictures and see for themselves. However, if you prefer the evolution tale, rather than the reality of our history? You're welcome to believe it.

The bible tell us: