i would have to research what your talking about because i assume your info is coming from christian sources, if you can find peer reviewed research for me, or something from talkorigins i will beleive you. However, this just points out a mistake, nothing more. You have very little understanding of biology as you are not educated in the field, hence anything you say carries little to no merit. Evolution, what you're attacking, is supported via multiple sciences all arriving at the same conclusion. Never been falsified, many christian scientists work within evolution, still not falsified.
post some research, or an article from a non christian source please. thank you.
Evolution should have been supported when they found this fish, that was supposedly gone. But don't take my word for it:
One of the great problems of evolution has been to find anatomical links between the fishes and their land-invading descendants ... For a long time evolutionists were troubled by this major gap between fishes and the amphibians. But the gap has now been bridged by studies of ancient fishes, and this is where the coelacanth comes in. - Dr. Jacques Millot, "The Coelacanth,” Scientific American, Vol. 193, December 1955
But after scientists actually found and observed acutal living coelacanths.....
“I confess I’m sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins....Few creatures have endured such an immense span of time with so little change as coelacanths. The cutaway drawing of a present-day specimen seems almost identical with the 140-million-year-old fossil found in a quarry in southern West Germany. ... Why have coelacanths remained virtually unchanged for eons ... 30 million generations?” Hans Fricke, “Coelacanths: The Fish That Time Forgot,” National Geographic, Vol. 173, No. 6, June 1988.
The short answer to Dr. Fricke question,
"They were fossilized a few thousand years ago, at the time of the flood." - Dr. Walter Brown, Center for Scientific Creation
My point was simply this: Evolutionists tend to postulate their theories, based on unobservable phenomena. But, once the opportunity to actually observes these theories in action present itself, the claims of the evolutionists and the actual facts often do not mesh. "Zeke" was supposed to be the link between fish and land-walking critters. But, to the chagrin of evolutionists, the "Zekes" were every bit as fishy as their allegedly 70-million-year-old ancestors (They didn't walk nor did they breathe air; just plain old, albeit LARGE fish).
Radiometric dating (K-Ar, in particular) is a prime example. As long as no documentation exists to the actual age of a rock, that dating can be used to say the rock is "x" millions of years old.
But, as is often the case, when a rock formation OF KNOWN AGE (i.e. someone has actually seen when and how it was formed and documented it) is dated, the same dating methods claim that such a rock is hundred of thousands or millions of years old.
And a thought to be extinct fish, found in the ocean, which is gigantic beyond belief and not near fully explored, is your supporting contention that the age of dinosaurs and the age of man over lapped?
When "Zeke" was thought to be at least 70 million years old (and extinct), the thought was that they certainly didn't co-exist with man. Well, those fish are alive and well and they co-exist with man (and have been doing so for quite some time).
