Replies

"All living things are potential missing links to some future species. Today's labrador retrievers may be tomorrow's otter-like carnivors, and the only evidence that labradors ever existed might be the discovery of a partial skull by some future paleontologist showing canine type fissures in the palate, even though that future otter-like labrador descended species looks more like an otter or a whale than whatever other terrestrial canines still exist at that future date.

This is utter doubletalk. On one hand the evolutionists say that the fossil record proves evolution, on the other hand they say that anything could have been related to anything else and the bones can't show the relationship.

You are missing the point completely. If evolution were true, practically all bones would be transitional bones. Practically all bones would be different from each other and show small differences from any other bone found. The fossil record does not show that at all. It shows many species lasting long periods of time. It shows them to stay the same for long periods of time. This would be impossible if evolution was true.

This is utter doubletalk.

No it's not. Your saying it is does not make it so. Your reaching pal.

On one hand the evolutionists say that the fossil record proves evolution,

No. Evolutionists say that the Evolution is the best explanation for the fossil record so far.

... on the other hand they say that anything could have been related to anything else and the bones can't show the relationship.

What? No they don't! No one is saying anything could be related to anything and bones can't show the relationship. Again you are just stating your own misconceptions as to what Evolutionists are saying.