Hi RAZD,



Absence of evidence hasn't stopped you before, why now? Presenting other fossil evolutionary scenarios as fact has been a pastime for evolutionists. Why the reluctance with the bat? Are they still creating a story behind it and the final editions have yet to be finalised before they feel it sounds plausible and convincing enough to be bought by the unsuspecting public?



Your own admissions speak volumes, as does your intent to confuse us about them. As for your commentaries, impressive as they may sound to some, may not convince all. In order to claim anything as scientific fact, you cannot simply say "prove it didn't happen". This isn't science and this does not add up to your claims of millions of transitional forms. Shifting the burden of proof is not "science". As one such evolutionary owner of a Museum also admitted in a letter, that there really is not one such transitional form for which one could make a watertight argument. This letter was later released, much to the horror of evolutionists.

Scientists admit evolution NOT supported by facts.

The most that we see, regardless of differing species, adaptions/varities/similarities is that they are still fully formed creatures and defined and recognised...both now and in the fossil record regardless of the changes you are proposing.

Though you are now attempting to refer to them as frauds.....(surprise surprise). But tell me, why were you giving an evolutionary excuse for them in the first place, if you were searching for hope that they were fake? Buying time in the process? until you could find a few nasty tid bits to hopefully blow it all up and egg your evo buddies on too hoping for anything at all, so you could claim them as fakes? Perhaps the less fossils people have to look at, the more room set up for imagination and manipulation. Evolution = imagination = perfect.



lol, we've all this heard this before. So whilst you're building up your ammunition to blow up the evidence, you're still trying to explain yourself out of it..... yeah ok, I think that should convince anybody they're all fake right? the fact you're insecure enough to try and excuse them, then on the other hand, searching for ways to prove they're "fake".

Sadly, not everybody buys into evolutionists attempts to place manipulative descriptions and scenarios around the fossils, however more adept they become at giving them (the story gets better all the time with a few ongoing adjustments to make it sound ever more apparently plausible). Adaptive changes/variations are not disputed by creationists, so you certainly can't own that one. However, blowing it out of proportion is another story and one you tell well.

We just do not see the transitional forms from one species into another, as has been suggested occured. Instead, they have indicated to us by comparison - the LITTLE evolution (changes) they have undergone. Intermediate changes are expected and should be clearly observed, not disputable as they indeed are. Even different species does not indicate a transitional form between one kind and another. Since the creatures today have shown to be adaptive and variable, why should the creatures (extinct or not) of the past be any different and subject to being slotted into an evolution label of a "transitional'. How do you know they are becoming anything else? Did you see their beginnings? Can you take us back so far to observe how they started and how they evolved? Or do you just tell us it happened "like this" and we're expected to buy into it?

Environmental changes responsible for evolution? Gosh, so much time and so little change. You should be able to simply sit back and smile as the millions of transitionals rolled out, without you needing to search for desperate motives. What would happen if the presentation of evidence was without the evolutionary swing to convince the audience that it happened - a bit like a bad sit-com without the canned laughter?.... (laugh out loud)



Ahh, the hopeful time savior! The shifting of the burdens of proof.... will either be the key I wonder? Will it buy RAZD still more time in the process whilst he sits back and smirks "hehe, my posts will REALLY do it this time. I've really got em stumped. Me and Russell2, we're just such a team".

But of course, the presented fossil pictures on here, once you got done trying to explain them by 'evolution', you decided to try and discredit them instead (probably a wiser move, since there is only so many ways you can keep telling the same story). I think this sounds better and it's a heck of a lot more exciting, you have to admit. The web owner is a "perverted criminal", the fossils are "frauds", oh gosh what else? There is a lure, we caught a lure and it was mistaken for something else. "Quick guys, get the picture, blow it up. Emphasise it at ALL costs, we gotta do damage control quick!" (put on a good front, laugh, jump and cheerlead "oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah").

Well, regardless of accusations (and I certainly know how that feels, it's another favourite pastime), I've given the website link, anybody can check out the myriads of fossils on there and ones of which date back much further than the ones I've given, should they wish to investigate. And if they believe them to be frauds, they can investigate further and contact the website also if they want.
Myriads of fossils - long age dating - take your pick

There is also a list that you can click on that pulls down to allow one to isolate the particular fossils of interest to them.

If they wish to find out more about the author and background ? They can find out more on there also at the bottom of the page.

Now, your attempts at shifting the burden of proof haven't gone unnoticed. How about giving us a good clear example out of the millions you have stored away and match what I've presented on here - e.g. let's see reptile to bird evolution with fossil evidence that proves skin/scales evolved into feathers. Is it not time you provided substance that means something to the viewer and to science? Rather than taking Achaeopteryx as the proof of dinosaur to bird, without even giving the fossil evidences of the transition taking place, seeing the miraculous happen? Scaled reptilian skin erupting into feathers.

Does pushing such requests onto me, setting them out and then demanding I rush to attention (a layperson), let you off the hook? (lure) Do you think the evolutionese commentary is proof of your theory? One wonders - can you meet the levels of your own requests without animations/charts and unproven scenarios? since you are the one who has made such outrageous claims in the first place, I assume you can. I haven't made the claims you have, I have simply put out what the fossils show us. Is it my fault that those fossils defy what we expected? Admittedly, yes they are now the subject of evolutionary excuses and descriptions and claims of "fakery", but it still poses ongoing questions rather than answers for your side. Shifting burdens of proof, accusations and lots of confusion in regards to what evolution REALLY means, is part of the whole game. Question is, how many people are willing to buy into it?



Yes it has been discussed. And I can quite understand the differences between surface appearance and actual genetic shared traits. But how does this dispute a common designer? Why do we not see the evidence of such transitions? You keep telling us it happened like this and it happened like that, but again, I'm asking you to show us the actual transition evidence. Again - show us the stages of evolution to prove skin/scales became feathers.

As for the comments on the owner of the website and his crimes? Perhaps anybody who is interested might wish to read this before one-sided condemnation.
Are the accusations real? Let's have a look at this side.

Even if the accusations were founded. Does that erase the fossils? His religious beliefs are not shared by myself either, but it still do not take away the material someone has presented and shared as part of our history. The stuff everybody has a right to view. And a right to view it as it is, without continual evolutionary hype and swing.

The evolutionists are so completely hung up by a defective fossil (lure), that it seems to me rather interesting that they are capatilising so much about it. Perhaps it will serve a double purpose by doing this for them - deter from the rest of the fossils, but also from their own shameful track record FULL of deceit/hoaxes in the process? Certainly, there is an agenda here and the more they laugh and hold up the lure, the more it's revealed.

The moth scenario that CTD brought up is only one such case of many.

Evolution Hall of shame

Evolution Decit

Could Dawkins be in a state of high agitation and need to discredit the owner and his material also for similar reasons? Well, the following is interesting:
Reply to Dawkins

So really RAZD, your own links mean little more to me than the evo painted scenarios in your own posts about our history. So links back at ya! Because it seems that this is simply a game of tit for tat, rather than much else. Your hope in the fossils being fakes is evident they are indeed a threat to the theory, but just in case, you've made sure you've covered your own backside with the same impressive sounding excuses regardless. Either way, evolution gives you the ongoing evolving cover you require to keep it alive.

I guess what you and Russell2 are trying to get across in more simplistic terms "you're a messin with da big boys now"