Tiktaalik or coregonid?

Careful Cory, I welcome all posts, except those from rude, arrogant know-it-alls, which are almost always evolutionists. What is up with that?

Coregonids are fish, just like Tiktaalik, so actually, they have a lot in common.

The video's purpose was to provide evidence that Tiktaalik was just a fish. It was not an attempt to prove Jesus' birth. Besides, there is no way to prove the virgin birth of Christ, but I believe it. Do you believe anything you cannot prove?

Not ruse, arrogant, or know-it-all. But I do call out people who speak of things they do not understand while claiming to be some sort of authority.

While these species have things in common (of course), they are not to be considered the same.

Your motivation for posting this is to attempt to undermine evolution. That's why you did it, and you know it. The only reason for you to do that is because it doesn't walk hand in hand with your faith -- and you know this as well.

No, this is not an attempt to undermine evolution, but evolutionism. Evolutionism (and creationism) are ideas about our past that cannot be proven. We can find evidence supporting both, but we cannot verify it, which is a requirement of real science. I can verify gravity, but I can't verify what Tiktaalik was.

I never claimed to be a Tiktaalik authority, but I know enough to see that some assumptions used to describe and model it are unreasonable and poorly thought through.

"No, this is not an attempt to undermine evolution, but evolutionism."

WTF?

And no, you cannot find any evidence supporting creationism. Supply some that can be peer reviewed and verified and you'd win the Nobel.

Science is verifiable. Every discipline in science supports and proves evolution to be a fact.

Rather than calling things that disagree with your faith to be "unreasonable and poorly thought through", perhaps you should learn about them first instead of just wishing them wrong.

Now that I've broadened your vocabulary with a new word, maybe I can broaden your thinking to help you discern between the non-science of evolutionism and the science of genetics. Genes change. This is verifiable. Disciples of evolutionism muddle the matter when they say things like "genetic mutations are the engines that drive evolution". If that is true, then evolution keeps getting driven into a tree. Mutations don't create novel functions.

Are you skeptical of Tiktaalik at all?

You've taught me nothing but the depth of your ignorance on these topics. Genetics not only supports evolution -- it has verified and expanded it greatly.

I have seen, touched, and studied Tiktaalik. Your understanding of it, and evolution as a whole, should be embarrassing to you - especially your understanding of genetic mutation.

Spend less time on poor apologetics and more time reading about what it is you criticize recklessly. Or be doomed to stay as ignorant as you are.

Attacking my intelligence won't get any more of your comments approved. Instead, why don't you share your knowledge of Tiktaalik with me?

Because conclusions made about fossils are speculative, people should be skeptical about them, and we should come up with alternative hypotheses. Hence, my video about Tiktaalik.

Now, show me the depth of your knowledge regarding Tiktaalik by listing three things about it that you are skeptical of and why.