Nialler

... regarding Randman.

While he's clearly a troll, his obstinacy in the face of some really well-explained concepts has had the benefit of exposing lurkers such as myself to some excellent science. My thanks for that. Your time wasn't as wasted as you may think.

Now to my suggestion: I think that it's abundantly clear to everyone that Randman has been obfuscating, prevaricating, and sometimes lying. His refusal to answer simple questions is particularly galling.

Why not enforce the challenge to him in the following terms:

He no longer be allowed to post until such time as he provides a definition of the term "kind". This he can e-mail to the moderator, his definition to then form the basis for a new topic.

I know that he will run around the other boards claiming to have been silenced, but you know yourselves that many creationists visit here. It should be easy to post a large notice in this thread explaining the challenge to Randman. In any event, he has already lied about this board, and there is no way to prevent him telling other lies no matter what you do.

After a specified time without a reply, Randman should be banned and notices placed on as many evo/cre websites as possible pointing out why and including links to his more obvious evasions.

I know that banning or suspension of posting rights is the ultimate sanction, but I hate to see a troll such as Randman getting airtime.

Oolon Colluphid

I think, since we've pretty well answered everything he's come up with, that your suggestion is not such a bad idea. It's something that would have to be done at the Admin level though. We mere moderators just get to edit, close and move threads and posts!

Alternatively... Come on randman, let's hear a working definition of these 'kinds' you believe are immutable. Time's up. Put up or shut up.

Oolon

Dr Rick

He will do neither.

hezekiah jones

Amen to that. Plus it's often really funny.

randman

"He no longer be allowed to post until such time as he provides a definition of the term "kind"."

I posted a definition of kind very clearly, but you guys are intent on smearing and lying about your critics due to your weak arguments.
By the way, why don't you offer a definition of transitional?

hezekiah jones

Haha. And I asked you at least twice if what you meant by originally created "kind" was merely "common ancestor," based on your AiG "cat tree." And if so, to give an example of one. But you never did.

Dr Rick

Another lie: randman's definitions of "kind" and "transitional" (which is a creationist term) are too vague to serve any purpose other than continuing lame evasions, and he refuses to answer pointed questions to clarify them because he knows that will make his dishonesty even more obvious.

Malaclypse the Younger

A transitional fossil is a fossil of an organism of a species (B) that shares features or measurements with fossils of organisms of two other, distinct species (A) and (C). The degree of "transitionality" of B between A and C is established by counting the features in common and determining to what degree these commonalities have the following characteristics:

<ol type="1">[*]Some features in A are found in B[*]Some features in C are found in B[*]A feature present in A and absent in B is absent in C[*]A feature absent in A and present in B is present in C[*]A linear measurement of a feature found in A, B and C is, in B, numerically between the measurements of the corresponding feature in A and C.[/list=a]

Note that criteria 2 and 3 logically prove that B is between A and C; if you change the ordering so that B is not in the middle, some features will fail to satisfy these criteria.

Tote up this score and you have the degree of "transitionality" of a fossil with respect to what it's transitioning between. Note that this definition is objectively determinable and does not rely on an assumption of even common descent.

Evolution predicts that:

• Some fossils will be transitional with respect to other fossils
• The transitional ordering of fossils will match the chronological ordering of fossils either forward or in reverse (i.e. ABC or CBA but neither ACB, CAB, BCA nor BAC

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Nialler

Firstly, my apologies to the moderators of this board; if I have a suggestion as to how they run the board I should make it privately. They do a fantastic job, and I relish the openness and the vigour that they allow to obtain here.

Secondly, someone else here has proposed an alternative mans of debating Randman - an approach that is much more sophisticated than my blunt tool.

So... let the debate begin on the terms offered elsewhere.

Damn! I'm advising the moderators again!!

RufusAtticus

We don't care. Comment and criticize publically; this is not BaptistBoard. We do not delete discenting voices.

-RvFvS