What would a transitional fossil look like?

The sarcasm is a corollary of Poe's law: To wit:

It would be interesting if you could show us those differences between the cow genome and the fish genome.Aren't they both made of the same LEGOs? What is there that prevents taking apart a LEGO castle and rebuilding it into a LEGO treehouse?

You're not addressing the issue. The reptilian genome and the mammalian genome are made from the same building blocks, the same DNA, the same LEGOs. How would it even be possible to prevent one from being rebuilt as the other? What enforces the rule that a particular LEGO can only make a reptile while another LEGO can only make a mammal?

Why? How is that even possible?

You still haven't explained how that is even possible, since every DNA molecule is made of the same building blocks, regardless of species. You're claiming that it's impossible to edit "Hello" into "Goodbye", which is ridiculous.

We don't see much similarity between a whale's tail and a fish's tail two feet away in the same water. But we do see a similarity between a whale's flipper which works in water, and a bat's wing, which works in air.

That doesn't follow. It is possible for the same pattern to evolve from different sources. Note the seal's flipper and the penguin's flipper, very similar in form and function, yet the seal is more closely related to other mammals and the penguin is more closely related to other birds. The evolution does not depend on birds and mammals having a common ancestor.

Floods. Plural. We have floods going on in the world right now, so we know they are plural. We have eyewitness accounts going back as far as humans have had the means to pass information down from one generation to the next, so we know floods are plural. We have no reason to think there haven't been floods every year as long as there has been water on earth and as long as there have been seasons.What we do NOT have is one shred of evidence that there was one big worldwide Flood. And we do have evidence that there was not.

On the contrary, it's the multiple layers (strata) that clearly show that they could not have all been deposited at once.

Q: How do you eat an elephant?
A: One bite at a time.How do you convince people that your a "high reasoner"? Try setting your sights a little lower. Convince us that you can reason at all before you try to "reason" away centuries of science.

You need to demonstrate your reason in what you post here. Until you get that up to 100%, my statement stands. I have not claimed to be a good reasoner. I let my posts stand for themselves.

The average creationist is playing Texas 42. Faith is playing soccer.

Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Superstition is a pejorative term for any belief or practice that is considered irrational[1] or supernatural: for example, if it arises from ignorance, a misunderstanding of science or causality, a positive belief in fate or magic, or fear of that which is unknown. It is commonly applied to beliefs and practices surrounding luck, prophecy, and certain spiritual beings, particularly the belief that future events can be foretold by specific (apparently) unrelated prior events.[2] The word superstition is often used to refer to a religion not practiced by the majority of a given society regardless of whether the prevailing religion contains alleged superstitions.

---

It's funny when a superstitious person calls somebody else superstitious, kinda like a 300-pounder calling a 400-pounder "fat".

I would never take anything you say as fundamental. I will continue to correct your misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation as I see fit. If anybody flees from discussion it will be you.

Horses walk on their fingertips. They're down to one on each appendage.