Originally Posted by RAZD
Still peddling shinola, CTD.
It ain't hard to tell shinola from that which you peddle, RAZD. Anyone with a functional nose cannot fail to make the distinction.

Quote
Rather than dodge the issue of falsfiability I have provided ways to do it. The fact that reality does not fall all over itself to provide you with such cases is not my fault - it just demonstrates how robust the theory is.
Nothing you've provided is the least bit objective. Nor is it remotely in keeping with the simplest scientific protocols.

It's not even in keeping with evolutionist tradition. They used to claim the missing links would turn up. But RAZD isn't alone in abandoning such foolishness. That which never existed outside of imagination can only "turn up" if it's manufactured.

Quote
That's one piece of evidence for the ancestor being a small shrew-like animal.
That's not evidence. That's an evostory. There is no evidence whatsoever that any nonbat creature was the ancestor of any bat. None.

I can't stop folks from imagining all sorts of things. But I can sure call imaginary things imaginary.

Originally Posted by RAZD's source
Evidence for bat-like flying mammals appears as far back as the Eocene Epoch, some 50 million years ago; however, the fossil record tracing bat evolution is scanty. Based on similarities of bones and teeth, most authorities agree the bat's ancestors were probably insect eating placental mammals, possibly living in trees, and likely the same group that gave rise to shrews and moles. Bats are not rodents and are not even closely related to that group of mammals.
What "most authorities agree" is what RAZD insists I must consider evidence. Note the term 'probably'. Note the tentative nature of the phrasing. Note that these "authorities" are all going to be evolutionists, or their opinion wouldn't even count.

But dispute RAZD's story & what do you get?
Originally Posted by RAZD
So there you have it: tree living, insectivore, shrew-like. That is the evidence already cited for what mammals were living after the 65 million year old extinction event. Thus when I say ...
There we have what? Speculation. Tentative speculation at that!

RAZD doesn't stop there. He spams more speculations. But so what? He's just a little further along in his evosickness. Previously he presented conclusions as evidence; now he sinks to presenting even non-committal speculations.

So we not only have a case of sham falsifications mocking science; we now get mockery at the other end. RAZD mocks the very concept of evidence.

Quote
And meanwhile, we have added yet another early mammal fossil to the long of known intermediate fossils along the transitional lineage from reptiles to modern day mammals.
Claim another 10,000. See who cares. We've seen your yardsticks, your gauges, your math, and your dictionary. (And we've certainly seen your spam.)

We've seen your religion, and we've seen the willpower you substitute for faith (for nobody ever had such faith as to believe a great multitude of things they know certainly to be false).

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