In my many conversations with the believers of Evolution, I extract all of the contrary nonsense.

For years the answer the "transition" from fish to reptile was the mud skipper fish.  The mud skipper fish has been around for a long time and has not changed.  It has been found to be from the Devonian period of 416 to 359.2 Million years ago.
Keep in mind that I do not believe in this radiometric dating as being accurate beyond about 10 to 20 THOUSAND years, because beyond that is a huge stretch of "ass um tion" .  I never consider "Assumption" to be a scientific word.  It is the words you find from believers who want to believe. There is no way to verify this dating system as absolute truth.  You think about it?

How is it possilble that any recognizable fossil can be that old. By the defintion these creatures could never remain the same that long.  Envronment of living on land "eventually" would lead the need to go in the water as unnecessary and they would not exist today as amphibians.

When evolutioinists use living fossils as evidence for some transition, you  know they are making it up as part of the belief system.  There is no tie to any other creature except by belief, because you cannot verify the family tree of any creature from 400 million year old fossils.  There is NO DNA to test to see if they are in the same genetic family.
This "test" is only observation and conclusions by humans with no other evidence than their "expert opinions".

Now comes the other fish, "that must have been the first fish to walk out of the water." The "Tiktaalik".  There is only, one fossil of this fish, and they age it a a convenient 365 Million  years.

The major issue with this is that if mammals came from this fish that  walked on land, then where are the other fossils that show the transition, and why is the "Tiktaalik" so much bigger than the mudskipper.  If the mud skipper came from a fish that was huge, before it walked on land, then how did it get smaller, very small as it evolved with a bigger food source?

The other issue with the mudskipper is that it is really a fish that can only use extremely moist air, extreme humidity, because it has no lungs.

The other issue is the locations where these two fish are found. Go look this up.

This is the most ridiculous evidence of Mythological belief and not science.

I all cases any evidence of either actually evolving beyond what they appear to be in the original fossil does not exist. 
The case is based solely on mythological beliefs of magical genetic processes that have never been documented in any scientific experiment or any intelligent scientific study where all ideas are looked into.

In Evodelusion "science" they never look at any other plausibility other than what the belief is founded on. It is founded on a religious idea that creatures can change their foundational genetics over any amount of time. This is the only thing that makes this religious Evodelusionism "real" to these low IQ followers of this religion.  You  cannot have any objetive awareness of humans if you believe in evolution.

You  have not studied all the facts and tried to put them together as I have.  Believe me non of the facts fit the belief, yet these fools will make them fit because their livelihood depends on perpetuating of this belief.  It is what they are paid for. 

They are not paid for objective science and continual testing by other plausibility.  They are paid to preach the religion to the new recruits of this religion in academia.

Mythology has never left the education system.  It is now just continued to be disguised as science.  Science for thousands of years has been the speaking out of the common belief of the political arena. 

Why would anyone  want to continue to degrade science like this?

When you have a need to make up a fossil that you can contort into the "fish you are looking for", then you will be looking for anything that fulfill the belief and you will tie completely unrelated creatures together if you  have to to keep the mythological story going on. The brainwashed belief is stronger than evidence.

Show me the evidence wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 9:31am:


Every statement is backed by documents from the Evodelusionists.

Evolution has no evidence of any transition from tiny simple creatures to larger or more complex.  There is no physical evidence of this.  All that exist is beliefs projected on evidence.  If you  can show me anywhere, on any scientific paper where the belief is not questioned and it is projected on the evidence and the conclusions are only "evolution".
Show me where they have tested this evidence by any other plausibility.  I think I am the only one who has done this.