Furthermore, how about posting a picture of an actual fossil, rather than a Macroevolutionist's reconstruction of a jumble of fossilized bones?
Because, after all, you're just going to ignore it all out of fear that you might learn some facts that might challenge the things you want to believe. That's really common among anti-evolution creationists.
In many cases, fossils of the supposed end species are dated as being earlier than that of the missing link.
Wow, what a cheap excuse for ignoring ALL transitional fossils, and all the biochemical, DNA, and biogeographical evidence which independently cross-confirms the transitional status of those fossils. Reality just bounces off your forehead with a sharp "ping", doesn't it?
Furthermore, the observation you point out is not a problem for transitional status, which you would understand if you bothered to learn the first thing about paleontology before you attempted to lamely critique it. Read this to get a clue. Short form: Your observation would be a valid objection if species existed for only a point in time, but since in reality they generally persist for many millions of years, your attempted point is, well, pointless. It's like someone saying, "hey, my mother was alive last week, and I was alive twenty years ago, so she can't be my ancestor!" Nice try, kid. Next time try a dishonest diversion that's not already on the list of creationist errors, fallacies, and red herrings.
Others have superficially appeared to be transitional species and have later been declared to be unrelated.
There are always borderline or questionable cases. Now how lame and dishonest of you is it to handwave away the vast numbers of transitional fossils which are NOT? How grossly dishonest of you was it to flatly declare that there weren't any at all? And why is it that almost without exception the anti-evolution creationists are some of the biggest liars I have ever seen?
Furthermore, how about posting a picture of an actual fossil, rather than a Macroevolutionist's reconstruction of a jumble of fossilized bones?
There were dozens of complete and "non-jumbled" fossils in my links. Why are you pretending that there aren't? Oh, right, because you're as dishonest as the rest of the creationists.
Don't you know that there's even a commandment against bearing false witness?
Don't you feel any shame whatsoever for attempting to mislead your fellow Freepers with such lame and transparent misrepresentations and falsehoods? If you do, you'll be the first anti-evolution creationist to display any shame whatsoever, but I always hold out hope that eventually one of you guys will turn out to actually follow the Christian ideals you pretend to be espousing. Come on, for once show me that at least one of you has better ethics than the decent atheists I know, none of which would stoop to the kind of behavior I see the anti-evolutionists routinely engage in.
You read those (more than 50) links in 14 minutes?
You remind me of the guy with his fingers in his ears going "la la la" At the top of his voice.