Did Satan plant the transitional fossils to fool us into believing in evolution?

I would say no. So-called transitional fossils don't really exist and it appears that they only exist in the minds of some creationists; most mainstream Christians don't think they exist either. Mainstream Christians wouldn't bother to deal with such a controversy. Creationism is most important to the fundamentalist branches.

So, Satan planted the traditional fossils to fool us? I don't think so, if the "us" in the question is we atheists. We don't believe in Satan, so the question may be moot. Due to your choice of words, the meaning of the question is not quite clear to me, perhaps another p*ff. I'll edit if that straightens me out...

Auntie Koo

Edit: More like if the "us" in the question are non-Christians, and it sounds that way to me Snake. Koo.

Speaking as a scientist (My faith has never interfered with believing in Evolution--only my scientific inquiry has) These are not transitional fossils. A transitional fossil would be a creature that is developing something that wasn't there before. For example, a skeleton. You cannot have a species without a skeleton, and suddenly there's one with a complete and working skeleton. It's too complicated--there must be in between steps that show how something would go from a cartilage creature to a creature with some hardened, bone like parts, to developments of joints etc. If evolution comes from additional genetic material thru mutations, then not only should we see these partial not fully developed transitional states of complex structures in the fossil record, but we should also see them occurring today with the millions of species we know about, we should see some of them beginning, in the middle of or at the end of the change. What about humans? Well, the only additional genetic material being added that I know of (and I'm no expert) would be those with Down's syndrome (they have an extra gene) and those with the XXX and XYY sex genes. This could be an argument showing how evolution might take place.

What transitional fossils?

Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”

Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.”9 It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.

Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”11 Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”13 The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”14 What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

Time is required for evolution to be.

But evolution is not required for time to be.

The fossils are from the world before the overthrow of Genesis 1:2, called the "katabole" in the Gr New Testament.

LOL. Who knows what that mean Satan would do. But mankind has been known to be fooled by the fossil record.

What transitional fossils? I've been hearing about them for years. Still NO signs of them.

All fossils are from the Global Flood. Period.

No, but the Atheist scientists imaginations worked overtime in some cases to bring about this theory as though it were fact, but it is not.

No. The world is billions of years old, but some very silly fundies think the world is 6000 years old.

Are evolutionists trying to claim their are transitional links now? Sorry. Not buying it.