The link Linda has given is littered with sarcastic and angry retorts of the "Creation Atlas" and a deliberate attempt to use a "lure" to put down the rest of the wealth of remaining fossil pictures. This should come as no surprise, but rather be expected due to the threat it poses to their theory (which they are desperately trying to pretend it doesn't).

Why is it, if this is not threat, that they have resorted to jumping up and down over an apparent mistaken "lure" and then overlooking OR putting down the rest of the genuine pictures as being bad camera/posing angles. Can you believe this? Seriously, this is what they have resorted to.

Here is an example of one of the comments used in an attempt to discredit his pictures, because frankly this is all they have left. (describes the wealth of pictures on that website as):

"juxtapositions of bad pictures of fossils with bad pictures of conordinal living things (fossil fern, living fern; fossil bunny, living bunny; fossil fly, living fly)"

Because after the lure, they don't seem to have much left, so the pose and angle are their best shot (excuse pun). Yet if you view the pictures Harun Yaha has, it tells another story and the pictures speak for themselves. Clearly and beautifully presented. Putdown commentary of bad camera or posing angles are a pitiful retort. Does it come any better (or worse) than this? If they could and had power of editing/deletion? One can only imagine. Evidentally they don't. So other things must instead be employed.

If only they applied even half of this outraged passionate "morality" over a lure, towards their own crowd, perhaps we'd take them a bit more seriously. One should be well aware of evolutionists jumping hard onto any website or person exposing their theory for what it is. The pictures and the person responsible will take an absolute battering for obvious reasons. So they find a lure, and this is their bait (ooh I did it again).

Fishing lures is not what I have been presenting here. So people can rest assured that I don't rely on mistaken lure. Far too much to choose from to require doing that. Consider what evolutionists have done in the past in an attempt to prove their theories?

At any rate, a lure problem does not have much to do with the rest of the fossils presented. Let's not forget that the owner himself also maybe prone to error as well on occassion. Again, this really does little to negate the rest of his material which is brilliant and a part of our history. One in which evolutionists don't appear to appreciate! (gosh, wonder why that would be?).