away for a few days, so have fallen behind on this thread, but I felt that Rac's statement, above, needed factual rebuttal.

Your error, Rac, lies in your not understanding biological systematics. When we say that coelocanths are an extinct organism, the statement is based on the failure to find any members of the coelocanthiformes, which is a group of transitional species between fish and tetrapods. Notice, please, the plural of species in the previous sentence. There are at least 14 species of coelocanths (coelocanthiformes)known, but there are only 2 surviving today. The others went extinct. We do not find samples of the extant species in the fossil record, meaning that they might have made their appearance relatively recently as the group changed over many missions of years, that is, they evolved.

Your comments about Tiktalik also warrant rebuttal. Your assertions are made up of holed-cloth that you (or someone you choose to believe) have fabricated. There has been no scientific rebuttal of the putative role of Tiktalik as an example of a transitional form, and saying so is simply not true. If I have somehow missed scientific reports of this "fact" in my 40 years of teaching about evolution, please send me the references and I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion.

I don't expect you to change your mind in response to my comments - you are too deeply committed to a non-scientific world-view, and choose to believe non-scientists such as Kent Hovind over data and evidence. However, if your wild claims are allowed to remain unrebutted, others with more open minds might conclude that you are correct when, in fact, you are not.

I respectively disagree you have a very strong aversion to people making up facts to be presented as scientific facts. If that were true you would not believe in Darwinian evolution as a scientific fact. Darwinian evolution is based on vivid imaginations initiated by assumptions of Darwinian evolution and the rejection that there could not be an Intelligent Designer. I was once a believer in darwinian evolution till I seriously looked at the difference between facts and assumptions, I saw how darwinians replace the word assumptions with facts. Now if there were what you called "overwhelming evidence" that Darwinian evolution was a fact, then why are many scientists starting to reject it? I guess you really don't have yo answer that, we could go on all year talking about this. You are correct, nobody in here who is paying attention are going to convince anyone one way or another. It doesn't do your side justice to get bent out of shape and start with the usual name calling and insults with every post they make on here. Although I would not classify you in the same group that does this, you have been largely polite with me most of the times...I guess it's because you are more mature than those that spew their disdain hatred. Maybe the rest will learn from your composure to be more civil. You and I have great disagreements, but at least we do it without disrespect...mostly lol.

By the way, welcome back :)