Missing link, Tiktaalik, fish with neck and limbs:

https://www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fish&hl=en&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hoUvUd6_POjC0AHmjIDYCA&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=677

How would creationists explain this one? They always say, there has never been a missing link. Well here is the refutation for that stance.

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fish&hl=en&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hoUvUd6_POjC0AHmjIDYCA&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=677

How would creationists explain this one? They always say, there has never been a missing link. Well here is the refutation for that stance.

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae

Neil Shubin who led the team which discovered this fossil wrote an interesting book titled 'Your Inner Fish' which is well worth a read. He goes into great detail about the expeditions to find this fossil and how the team went about it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fish&hl=en&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hoUvUd6_POjC0AHmjIDYCA&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=677

How would creationists explain this one? They always say, there has never been a missing link. Well here is the refutation for that stance.

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae

Very interesting article but nothing definative. The title even has a question mark.(?)There are also:
'Some caution is appropriate'
'It is also debatable' <---- to show a few...

Still an interesting article though. When time permits I will look up more about this. Too many big words for me to absorb on a short lunch break.

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fish&hl=en&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hoUvUd6_POjC0AHmjIDYCA&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=677

How would creationists explain this one? They always say, there has never been a missing link. Well here is the refutation for that stance.

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae

They don't seem to realize that Archaeopteryx has already been proven a fraud.

YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=Xhv5NR_cDnA

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fish&hl=en&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hoUvUd6_POjC0AHmjIDYCA&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=677

How would creationists explain this one? They always say, there has never been a missing link. Well here is the refutation for that stance.

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae

Why DNA Proves Evolution Is False

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=3yNju1_-CMk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=4dWimXdtzWs

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why DNA Proves Evolution Is False

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=3yNju1_-CMk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=4dWimXdtzWs

what part of the first video proves evolution is false?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what part of the first video proves evolution is false?

So you only have a problem with the first video? Were you able to watch it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you only have a problem with the first video? Were you able to watch it?

Oh pleeeze, another creationist site just HAPPENED to be interested in science, only JUST HAPPENED to be biased against evolution, citing a fraud from 1864? How about proven frauds from century 21? Don't EVEN call neandertal fraud. Why don't you find real science to refute evolution? I'll tell you why. You CAN"T. You can only come up with creationist site with their oh so predictable line of BS. Show me a 200 million year old fossil of a rabbit or crow, that would be a game changer, otherwise go ply your wares elsewhere. Only a very small minority of people here actually believe the Earth is 6000 years old and growing smaller every year just like flat earthers.

How a grown man can look at something like the grand canyon or the buttes and think 'its amazing how much can happen in 6000 years' is more than amazing to me, more like leaving me aghast at the pure stupidity of such a stance.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Oh pleeeze, another creationist site just HAPPENED to be interested in science, only JUST HAPPENED to be biased against evolution, citing a fraud from 1864? How about proven frauds from century 21? Don't EVEN call neandertal fraud. Why don't you find real science to refute evolution? I'll tell you why. You CAN"T. You can only come up with creationist site re than amazing to me, more like leaving me aghast at the pure stupidity of such a stance.

There are no 200 million year old fossils. The fossils we have are very young, perhaps a few thousnd years old, in comparison to that, so you are out of luck. If someone claims to have a 200 million year fossil, don't trust them to run free in your house.

Now as far as the age of the Grand Canyon, I have already referenced a link to the Mount St. Helena eruption and Spirit Lake flooding in 1982 that left a small canyon like the Grand Canyon in a matter of months. With that in mind it is very easy to envision the Grand Canyon being caused by volcanic eruptions and a worldwide flood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_Lake_(Washington)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens

YouTube

http://www.travel-travel-travel.com/out/archives/23/GEORGIA-S_LTTLE_GRAND_CANYON.htm

YouTube

A geologist's idea of how the Grand Canyon was formed in a short time:

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
A geologist's idea of how the Grand Canyon was formed in a short time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo

RJ there is a lot of rubbish on that there internet. I've clicked on a few of your links and they are not convincing me....

Originally posted by e4chris
RJ there is a lot of rubbish on that there internet. I've clicked on a few of your links and they are not convincing me....

That is too bad. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is too bad. 😏

You might even start convincing people of problems with evolution if you would find scientific links with reasoned refutations but all you come up with is your careful search for clear creationist biased video's with just words and actors reading Q cards.

You cannot convince a 3 year old with tactics like that. It is very simple so suss out what the motivation of the speakers are and creationist bias sticks out like a sore thumb.

Find some independent non-religious biased science and we will be a lot more likely to be swayed.

However, all you can come up with is your search for creationist sites that shows arguments from the 19th century or objections that have been fully resolved decades ago.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You might even start convincing people of problems with evolution if you would find scientific links with reasoned refutations but all you come up with is your careful search for clear creationist biased video's with just words and actors reading Q cards.

You cannot convince a 3 year old with tactics like that. It is very simple so suss out what the moti ...[text shortened]... shows arguments from the 19th century or objections that have been fully resolved decades ago.

You wouldn't believe them either. You have a deadbolt on your brain.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You wouldn't believe them either. You have a deadbolt on your brain.

As Very Rusty likes to say, pot, kettle, black.