Replies

Absolutely nothing - did you read the rest of the post? Feathers on a dinosaur does nothing to prove transition or evolution.

Exactly. Creationist calls for physical evidence ("Where o where is the missing link?") which you already have lawyered away as meaningless are a simple rude waste of everyone's time. You demand the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West, with the implication that you would acknowledge such a thing as proof. You won't, and anyone who has watched the Creationist Dumbshow before knows it.

<< Exactly. Creationist calls for physical evidence ("Where o where is the missing link?") which you already have lawyered away as meaningless are a simple rude waste of everyone's time. You demand the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West, with the implication that you would acknowledge such a thing as proof. You won't, and anyone who has watched the Creationist Dumbshow before knows it. >>

No matter how many times you resort to your "better arguments" (those devoid of fact, ad hominem, and insults), the TRUTH remains that just because one creature resembles another in some ways is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that either is a transition.

This is obvious to any rational man because of how many living things have common features, yet we know they are not transtions to each other. Bats have always been bats, but if they did not exist today, you would surely be offering them as a transition to birds, flying squirrels, or maybe F-16's.

If there were no actual platypuses and you found one in the fossil record, you know you would herald it as a transition and evidence for evolution. You try to do it with creatures with less common features than a platypus has - like your proposed feathered dinosaur.

Snakes have scales, fish have scales. Is one evolving into the other?

Octopi have eight legs, spiders have eight legs. Will we see an octupus spinning a web in a few kazillion years?

Horses have manes, lions have manes. Is it moving up the neck or down?

So if some dinos have feathers, then some dinos have feathers. Some mammals have wings, that doesn't make them transitional.

Yell and fuss and kick and whine and mock all you want, similarity doesn't indicate transition. Similarity indicates common plan of design. The answer will be the same for EVERY creature you offer as a transition because it is valid for every creature you offer. Transition is your *interpretation* of the facts, it's not a fact itself.

("Where o where is the missing link?")

Regardless of whether the person you are speaking to will buy the response, nevertheless, if evolution's claim to be science is to be true, it must answer such questions. For some 150 years evolutionists have been claiming that man is descended from chimps. (You and others still like to point to similarities even nowadays, so don't say that evolution denies that now else you are calling many of your own statements as well as those of other evolutionists dishonest). The fossil evidence first forced evolutionists to claim that we had 'branched' from the same tree of primates and that the descent occurred further back. The further back is now up to ten million years (and have even seen some 20 million years). We are still looking for the missing link in this. We are also looking for the missing link between mammals and reptiles and between all major categories. If evolution were true these major divisions should be the best documented since they required the biggest changes and the most time to take place. It is utterly ridiculous to say that evolution is both gradual and that the major categories of species and the greatest changes occurred without leaving any trace in the fossil record.