>Glenn,
>
> The fact remains that if creature B appears in the fossil
>record after creature A, there is no reason to believe that
>creature B actually existed before creature A. The best the
>evolutionist can say is that it is *possible* that the vagaries of
>fossilization have created a false impression. That, however, is
>an assumption which the evolutionist makes to harmonize the data
>with his theory. I have no problem with assumptions, but they need
>to be "confessed." That way, when the creationist balks at the
>claim that creature B begat creature A, his resistance can be
>properly understood.
>
>Ashby
Russ