Missing Link?

The other day scientists announced that they had found a missing link in the evolution from fish to land animal, and quite frankly I thought it was a good article. It was very funny.

I know that I'm probobly going to get some coments about this, so I want to state my position up front. Yes, I am a creationist. But even if I weren't a creationist, I would have a problem with this "missing link"

The first thing that sent up flairs is that, in one print article I read, it said that they had been looking for a creature that maches the discription of the one they found since 1999. Ironicly they found what they were looking for. If this is not true, then I apologize, but if it is true, I am guessing that they were running low on funding and had to find something to get more money.

I'm guessing that they just threw some stuff together and called it a new species. for example, in the Washington Post article it says that this thing had "ribs heavy enough to support its body on dry land.", but there are no rib svisible in the pics. also, the head looks too big for the body (there was a pic in the Star Tribune that showed this better. I will try to get a copy of it.)

so is this a missing link? I would say no, but like the exsistance of UFOs, Loc Ness Monster, and Bigfoot, I am perfectly willing admit that I am wrong if undeniable proof is discovered. Until then, I will continue to believe that Evolution did not happen, and that this creature is not a missing link.

the pic comes from A Lie A Day