Originally Posted by Russell2
Hi CTD

Nothin' fake about evolutionists' "evidence".

What is it you think is fake about this evidence other than that you wish it were not true?
What's to wish.

Quote
The picture is an artistic reconstruction of what the fossil may look like with muscle and skin.
= Imagination.

Quote
The evidence is a well preserved fossil skeleton. Are you suggesting that someone made the skeleton? Evidence please?

Of course this is National Geographic, so I guess one's just supposed to take their word for it.

Why would you just have to take their word for it? If you are interested or dispute their descriptions you could go back to the original articles, they’re cited, or of course there is always the original evidence if you don’t believe the article. What part of this do you believe is fake CTD and on what grounds do you think so?
Are you suggesting National Geographic lacks the resources to provide a pic of the skeleton?

When I'm provided with links to imagination, well it's the internet. But the one providing such links doesn't have much standing to complain about evidence others present. Whining about the fact that a book contains a trifling amount of mistakes is pretty lame. The error rate of most books is higher than what's been demonstrated, and few books are scrutinized to this extent. (I won't even go into the error rate of talkdeceptions.)

RAZD has presented nothing more than a rumour of a frogamander. That ain't very convincing evidence.

Originally Posted by Russell2
Hi CTD

* Answer: RAZD has ironically described a bat.

So you are suggesting that bats have a totally different skeletal structure to all other known life is that it?
You call it 'suggesting'; I call it 'observing'.

Quote
Are you aware that bats share their skeletal structure with humans, with all mammals?
Oh really? Say whatever you like to justify your faith. RAZD put forth a requirement and it's been met. He surely doesn't need any help from you to weasel out.

Quote
Some of their bones are longer, some shorter, a few have disappeared...
Disappeared? You have evidence? I know you have the capacity to tell a story, but I said 'evidence'.

Quote
...but the basic structure is the same. Do you understand the concept of Homology and how it is detected in organisms?
Perfectly I understand this. When things are similar, and they suit the evostory, they're called "homologous". When they don't suit the story, they're called "convergent evolution". When this happens I call it intellectual dishonesty.

Quote
If not you should read up on it, you could avoid such obvious falsehoods as this one.
No matter what I read, you'll still publish falsehoods. There is no cause - effect relationship involved.

Quote
Birds and bats have independently evolved wings from their forelimbs (an example of convergent evolution). However, while their wings look superficially quite different, ...
When it suits your story you're willing to overlook any differences, no matter how great, no matter how obvious. No news. I already knew this. Who didn't?

And you waste your time. RAZD already said the DNA-based fantasy must match the fossil-based fantasy. They don't match. Game over. He cannot be intellectually honest and be an evolutionist; and you are powerless to change things one whit. At this point, it's up to RAZD to be intellectually dishonest on his own.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson