bill-not sure if i was unclear or you avoided the meaning of my post.i was inviting you to be specific in your criticism of the creation article on tiktaalek.this was mostly commenting on scientific data.i am perfectly aware you discount the bible as authoritative[as also don who took the same tack].it will be sufficient to say if you think tiktaalek and his mates represent a fish to tetra chain or if the poland find does elimenate the former claim.

tia-on the face of it your challenge presents as reasonable and i have to admit that i cant think of anything that you might present that would change my mind except an undoubted missing link find.but that has been done has'nt it.was it for 40 years some lost their faith because of piltdown man?!
seems you are eminently noble and maybe really willing to accept it if such fossils are found together but i dont think it likely most evolutionists would accept it.
as i have said before some evolutionists have admitted that evolutionism is far from proven.
of course you could quote theologians who dont accept creationism;but an admission by a creation believing scientist would be a more correct correspondence.