Replies

You don't even seem to have read what I wrote in #1066, above. It looks like you just hustled over to your favorite creation website and pulled the first seemingly relevant page you could find. Oh, here is the URL, which you forgot to include:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm

You also forgot to include "Updated: 10/4/95" which appears at the bottom of the page. Really on top of things over there, eh?

But, that OK. I'll play the game.

The first two paragraphs of this site read:

A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.
If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.

This is why I figure you didn't actually read my post. If you had, you would have seen with your own eyes just what these paragraphs claim couldn't and didn't happen.

Go back to post #1066 and really look at the various skulls, and you will see for yourself the gradual changes (transitionals) which your creationist websites say dodn't exist.