Another Chance For Creationists To Recite Falsehoods About Intermediate Forms

There are many intermediate forms in the fossil record. This fact sends biology-deniers into their most ridiculous and hysterical fits of falsehood, because they cannot bear to acknowledge that this fact is a fact.This thread is therefore dedicated to their arguments. If they wish to deny reality, this is the place for them to do so.

But "where's the meat?" is just the question that I'm asking.I feel like a man in a forest talking to someone who denies the existence of trees. It's hardly up to me to make the argument. This is a thread for reality-deniers to make their arguments. Where's the meat? Where's the meat? Where's the meat? It's an excellent question. Where's the meat?This is a thread for them, not for me. I've told them again and again in other threads about other subjects that their denial of intermediate forms is off-topic. Here is a thread where it is completely on-topic. This is the purpose of this thread. If anyone wants to deny the existence of intermediate forms, this is the place for them to do it.

So many that it is impossible for me to count them.If there were just six of them, I could count them and give you the answer "six". But there are so many, and new ones being discovered every month, that I don't know how many there are. The fossil record is full of them. How can we even start to count them?

That's definitely not the same fossil. As you can see from the anatomical description, it is stated that it has a pygostyle, whereas the Archeoraptor composite did not: its tail is from a Microraptor.Lots of intermediates between reptiles and modern birds have been found in China. It is sadly typical of creationism that of the many beautiful specimens to come out of China, the only one that you could think of is one that evolutionists proved to be spurious within months of getting their hands on it. Are genuine fossils of no interest to you?---Archaeoraptor was a spurious fossil, produced by attaching the front half of an primitive bird (Yanornis) to the legs of some otherwise unknown creature and the tail of a winged dinosaur (Microraptor) too primitive to be even called a bird (i.e more primitive than Archaeopteryx). It is therefore, in fact, a composite of two (at least) intermediate forms, each of interest in their own right.

That's exactly what they did. Evolutionists studied Archeoraptor and found it to be composite almost the moment they got their hands on it. For some reason, you trustingly accept their word for it.Meanwhile, you jumped in and falsely identified the fossil that Briterican's list was actually talking about as being Archeoraptor without spending fifteen seconds to look at the evidence and find out that it was no such thing.It isn't any of the evos round here who was making false, baseless claims about Archeoraptor. It was ... you.I notice that you haven't acknowledged your error. But then, when evolutionists are absolutely right and you believe everything they say, they're still evolutionists, whereas when you're absolutely wrong, you're still a creationist, so I guess in the magical kingdom of your mind you're still superior to them.

So, baseless speculation not only without evidence, but contrary to evidence you could have found with fifteen seconds research. On what? If that would involve letting go of reality, I'm afraid I have my hands full.---Now, wasn't this thread set up for you people to deny the findings of scientists. So far, you seem to have concentrated on affirming that they were absolutely right ... and criticizing them for it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, of course not.Of course, if you believe creationist halfwits, neither event has ever happened, so of course you have to rely on evolutionists for any facts about this as for all your other facts in biology. First, more forms are known. Second, it was only in about the year 2000 that we found out where whales evolved, how many would you expect to be found by now? You call those "legs"? You think it could walk on them? If you're going to admit that Pakicetus was related to whales I don't really see what more you have left to concede. Anatomy. This is what makes them intermediate forms.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.