Oolon Colluphid

Okay, from the top, but briefly...

Do a poll, but probably most people.
You’ll need another poll, but again, probably most people. (With the caveat that 'believe' is incorrect except in its colloquial sense. 'Accept because of the evidence' is more accurate.)
Nested hierarchies of similarity in both morphology and genetics; the fossil record which shows change across time; biogeography where similar things are found in the same region, and eg: island diversity; developmental biology showing, eg: the formation of structures not required by the modern organism, but essential to its putative ancestors; vestigial features, such as the human coccyx; observation of modern populations; computer modelling of populations; the observation that variation, inheritance and competition lead to adaptation; convergence, where different organisms solve the same ecological problems in similar ways, eg: bird and bat wings; and a host of otherwise inexplicable features in organisms, such as telomeres in the middle of the human chromosome 2 and human ear-wiggling muscles. In short: all of biology.

I hope you get the picture.
Sorry, you have been lied to. Your assertion is false. There are plenty: Archaeopteryx lithographica, Australopithecus afarensis, Acanthostega gunneri, Ambulocetus natans, Morganucodon...

But before we go any further, please define 'transitional', so we can tell whether we have examples that fit what you're after, or not.

Note that even Answers in Genesis lists your claim as "doubtful, hence inadvisable to use".
False. Bacteria continue to become resistant to antibiotics; finch beaks change across mere years on Daphne Major in the Galapagos; the HIV virus evolves within individual patients; even speciation has been observed, both in the lab and the field.
Mere assertion. Please substantiate... preferably in a separate thread. But just in passing, perhaps you can tell us how there can be fossilised mud cracks sandwiched between layers of sediment? Mudcracks are produced when mud dries out... rather difficult during a flood, I would have thought.
That is because, when it speaks of scientific matters, it is either plain wrong or saying nothing that is not banal. Yes, we mock, and rightly so: even Augustine agreed:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."
-- The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20.

Yeah. Are you going to defend your claims?

Oolon Colluphid

And another irony meter blows a transistor.
Flying creeping things with four legs in Leviticus? There’s a firmament in the sky? But anyway, take it down the hall to BC&H.

Oolon Colluphid

Dammit! Another irony meter gone! :angry:
Yes it does. Take it to BC&H.

Martin B

This is wholly incorrect. The phenomena do not have to be repeatable, rather it is the supporting observations that have to be repeatable. The reason for this is so that the phenomena being understood are not supported by anecdotal evidence.

In the physical sciences, we repeat the experiment because generally we are interested in describing properties known as universals. These are phenomena that are generally true in the universe (i.e. bodies of mass attract, hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water, heat will transfer from warmer bodies to 'colder' ones, etc.) Because we're interested in understanding these as universal phenomena, then the phenomena must be repeatable. Why? Because to say that bodies of mass attract cannot be based on a single supporting observation.

In the case of evolution or geology, we're most often looking at historical statements, rather than universal properties. We're making statements about events that occurred in the past. However, if we're explicit enough in our theories about that history then we can test it. Obviously, we can't repeat history, but it would be valueless even if we could. Re-enacting the Battle of Gettysburg doesn't prove that it happens. Historical documents and a hell of a lot of physical evidence shows that a battle fitting that description took place.

The reason for repeatability in science has to do with the need to avoid "a guy I know..." stories. If you say that a prism will bend light rays, then provide an experimental protocol for me to make the observations myself. If I say that there's a fish fossil showing a limb construction like that of a tetrapod (=terrestrial vertebrate), I have to give you the names of some institutions and the appropriate specimen numbers so that you can go to the collections and see them on the shelf like books in a library.

This is a rather naïve view of science. Again, you're failing to distinguish between science as an arbiter of both historical and universal statements. For instance, whether or not Galileo dropped spheres of different mass from the Tower of Pisa is disputed by historians, not physicists. But because the concept of acceleration due to gravity is not a historical concept, it doesn't matter if he dropped balls from the Tower of Pisa. We can go outside and do it ourselves in order to see if bodies of equal mass do in fact accelerate towards the earth at the same rate.

But let's take a historical phenomenon such as genocide, for instance. Let's suppose that we have had no previous records of humans ever committing genocide. An archaeologist then publishes a paper one day claiming to have uncovered evidence of genocide on an island somewhere. How are we to demonstrate that genocide actually happened on that island? Do we go out and kill a bunch of people? No. We ask the archaeologist to define genocide, then examine the evidence presented. Return to the island to collect more, if needed. The point is, genocide is a term that is sufficiently and explicitly designed that we would know what the evidence would look like if we saw it. The phenomenon does not need to be repeated, nor is repeating it even sufficient to prove the archaeologist's claim.

Evolution is a rigorously defined phenomenon. Darwin set many of the terms and conditions: common ancestry, variation/mutation, selection. But we have since learned more and made the theory much more rigorous. It has been tested and re-tested. We have found many transitional fossils. If you need help, I can point you to many of them (I work on them as my Ph.D. project - please don't tell me there are none, because about half a dozen of them are sitting on my desk as I type this!).

Creationism, you are quite correct about, cannot be science. This is not because it isn't repeatable, but instead because it asserts very vague statements ('God created...'). When we say 'God created...' we are no closer to understanding what happened. We need to define what we mean by 'God created...'. Is there a mechanism of God's action? Can you propose one and explain what it means? No. The Bible offers no satisfactory information about that. So, it is not science. Evolution is.

Oolon Colluphid

For you are about to sin, presumably.
And he gave us ear-wiggling muscles and an appendix too. How thoughtful. I must remember to thank him for giving me an inguinal ring too.
Funnily enough, I don't believe that either.
... where you pull your arguments from?
That's the first correct thing you have said. True, it is not science. It's this chap:



So then. Forgiveness you were after, wasn't it? Okay, I absolve you. Say three Male Hairies. Then go read a book or two on the subject before commenting further (see the Augustine quote above). "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Oolon Colluphid

And in ISVfan we have one of the most blissful creationists for some time. Congratulations!

Thlayli

I don't know, man... if he'd read from Answers in Genesis, at least he'd know which arguments not to use. As is, he's using all the old, tired arguments that were pretty much kicked in the crotch before the internet was even around.

But I'd rather he read from talkorigins.org and actually learn something real anyway. It's sad to think that AiG would be a good start.

Wads4

Talking of new ones, I fancy I have coined a new word "Deogenic",-meaning "God-did-it",- or am I flattering myself?

Oolon Colluphid

Fine. Cool.

Then why do you deny evolution? It cannot be on Biblical grounds, since the Bible does not have to be read literally.

As I said before, I think you are a theistic evolutionist, but maybe don't know it yet.

Wads4

"You are an unfortunate victim of a brainwashing machine that corrupts and distorts scientific facts for its own ends, and you are not the first person either. Assuming you are a young earth creationist, I ask you one question. How is it possible for stars, that are proven to be millions of light years away, to be seen on Earth if it, and the stars, were created 10,000 years ago?"

They will use their favourite ploy to "explain" this by saying that the speed of light has altered, or that God made it look that way in order to test our faith. You can't win arguments with people who move the goalposts to suit the question and just make any old unfalsifiable or unobserved assertion.