Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?

Well the simple answer is that by taking this line you are arguing that science has shown your religion to be false.But I think the problem is in your theology.Considering the following facts.1) According to Christian doctrine the unoverse is the direct creation of God
2) The empirical evidence shows us a universe billions of years old. And that evidence is observations of the universe itself.So if the universe is much younger then God HAS deceived many, many people.In contrast according to normal Christian doctrine the Bible is not directly createdby God and telling us the age of the universe was not the purpose God had in mind for the Bible.So it seems to me that a universe only a few thousands of years old is worse for Christianity since it proposes that God created a great deal of deceptive evidence - whereas if the literal reading of the Bible is wrong on this issue the worst that can be said is that God did not intervene to prevent an error in the Bible.

Well there you are - for your religion to be true you need to "know" things that aren't true. There are plenty of transitional fossils.This page has photographs of an actual transitional fossil - a Pakicetidhttp://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.htmlThese pages has a photograph of archaeoptery and "fuzzy raptor" fossils
Sorry, that's a dead link (404) | Natural History Museum
Sorry, that's a dead link (404) | Natural History MuseumThis page has a photograph of the fossil of an early tetrapod - Pederpes Finnyae
YahooSo there you are.And empirical evidence shows that if you put 2 male and 2 female bunies together and wait you will end up with rather more than four bunnies.

Pakicetids aren't closely related to the canids. They're an offshoot of the artiodactyls. And they're a lot bigger than rats.I don't see your issue with the skeleton - when you allow for the fact that mammals have bilateral symmetry most of it is there. You've got almost all the spine, the pelvis, most of the skull, the front legs, most of the back legs and some of the ribs.The bones will give you a lot of the muscle structure so it's just the outer skin and fur that are at all in question. And the transitional status of the specimen doesn't rely on those being exactly right.Now vcome on, you say that there are no transitional fossils. Well whaeres your support for that claim ?