[xenophiles]

If you read Gish’s book, or research the fossil record, you will see that there is no (zero) fossil evidence for transitional forms.

An excellent reason not to read books by the old fool: "Tiktaalik roseae, was recently discovered on Canada. The fossil is important because it fills in a gap in the transition from fish to amphibians and provides clues as to how the transition took place".

Ah Soliton, you fail to see the cleverness of the creationist argument; now that a transitional form between fish and amphibians has been found, it's no longer transitional. It will be quietly removed from the the list of fossils that should exist but don't (like reptiles->birds or land mammals->whales) and they won't admit they ever challenged science to find it. From now on when they say that there is no (zero) evidence for transitional forms, they'll mean between fish and tiktaalik roseae, and between tiktaalik roseae and amphibians.

[aruanan]

Ah Soliton, you fail to see the cleverness of the creationist argument; now that a transitional form between fish and amphibians has been found, it's no longer transitional.

Ah, xenophiles, you fail the see the cleverness of the evolutionist argument by Stephen Jay Gould of explaining the paucity of so-called transitional forms by positing periods of evolution that are so fast and furious that there is not sufficient time to preserve them in the fossil record. Don't be so smug.

[Soliton]

From now on when they say that there is no (zero) evidence for transitional forms, they'll mean between fish and tiktaalik roseae, and between tiktaalik roseae and amphibians.

The space for cretion gets smaller though doesn't it?