Quote from Linda: It's also interesting to see that you also find cutting and pasting from people's websites indiscriminately to be acceptable science, even when the pictures are of fishing lures and not real organisms, even when mistakes have been made with identifying species, even when the modern organisms are not actually the same as the fossilised ones and the comparisons have simply been made by looking at pictures.
I never suggested it was. You have been misleading here. Take a look at the website and let's have a look at how many fossils one could remotely mistake for a fishing lure? Let us know how many you find. In my posts, have I presented pictures of fishing lures when presenting examples of fossils or ones that could be? How many readers do you assume will take your word for it rather than view the site itself I wonder?
I see nothing unscientific in giving people a source of an abundant examples of many real life fossils to view ... I prefer giving a link to (or putting them up myself) of this, rather than animation and charts/scenarios. I see no reason not to repeat the link to those who wish to review such a variety fossils themselves and may not wish to search through many past posts to find it. Irrespective of your protests against it, your attempts to discredit and misrepresent the entire site based on a few errors - I will continue to refer to this website as an excellent source to view fossils.
Your response to my posts on this thread (starting with a mere link to giving an example of many varities of fossils) has been highly defensive, evidenced by your attitude and attempt to misrepresent both my position and the website in question. You have coloured an entire website based up a "fishing and lure" mistake or any other few examples of "mistaken identity". Anybody who takes a look at that site can see for themselves that regardless of the few errors, it is a brilliant and abundant example of MANY fossils which you have failed to mention in preference for highlighting whatever mistakes you can discover (or google in search for). Again, very revealing.
Regardless of what you have pointed out here. What the fossils do show, regardless of variation/adaption and some changes, is that they are recognisable to the many creatures we still observe to this day E.g. birds, frogs, goats, horses etc are still birds, frogs, goats and horses. The point here is not to dispute the changes that we observe takes place within existing genetic information, lending the variety we see today, which is recognised by creationists - it is however a challenge to macroevolution. Which has not been observed in our day and age, nor so it seems displayed from the past.
Linda, CTD has given you a warning already. Here is mine. I suggest caution before clicking the submit button should you be tempted to repeat the same behaviour.
