All right, you know what, you're right. The word "challenges" was a poor choice of words on my part. My mistake!
What I SHOULD have said was, "I said that this DIRECTLY ANSWERS the long-standing question anti-evolutionists always throw out, 'Where are the transition fossils'?"
Now I suppose we could debate whether or not this truly is a "transition fossil" until Christ returns. I'm not interested in that. In fact, it's why I mostly avoid these "crevo" threads. To be quite blunt, the science debated here is mostly shoddy, incomplete, and cherry picked. The so called "Creation Institute" is a perfect example of such work.
My only purpose for posting here now was to show the hypocrisy of Mr. Ham. I think I've done that pretty well.
If you care to debate the merits of this fossil, that is, whether or not it truly does represent a "transition", then the last word is yours for reasons stated above.
“What I SHOULD have said was, “I said that this DIRECTLY ANSWERS the long-standing question anti-evolutionists always throw out, ‘Where are the transition fossils’? Now I suppose we could debate whether or not this truly is a “transition fossil” until Christ returns. I’m not interested in that.”
Not interested in the salient point? OK.
“To be quite blunt, the science debated here is mostly shoddy, incomplete, and cherry picked. The so called “Creation Institute” is a perfect example of such work.”
I agree...shoddy on both sides, I maintain, this exciting new find...as the Cold Fusion discovery and Global Warming (now known as “Climate Change”) have proven to be...I’ll go away now. Thanks.