Mageth

"Hidey, Ho!"

"That's not Jesus, dear. That's Mr. Hankey!"

Joe Meert

JM: You are quite correct in saying that an organism is simply an organism and only in hindsight are we able to see what was and what came after. However, I guess my main goal was to show that creationists will reject any evidence for transitionals out of hand. By demanding that they explain what sort of evidence they would find acceptable, we can show the absurdity of their request. I expected the half-cow, half x answer but instead I got the big dodge. Is this because a particular creationist has recognized the absurdity of the 1/2 and 1/2 story and recognizes that he has no idea what a transitional might have looked like?

JM: I'm thinking some of them might actually recognize the absurdity of such a claim. However, in asking for details about what they would accept, it shows that they have not thought about this much.

JM: Exactly and I do point that out when the conversation turns that way.

JM: I don't think this particular conversation was headed that direction. Perhaps it's my incorrect thinking that it was not about 'progress' anyway. Anyway, thanks for the comments they are appreciated.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Jimmy Davies

Beats a dead gerbil.

mark24

Hi Joe,

I once got Peter Borger over on EvC (Percies site) to agree to an evolutionary prediction of what a transtitional form should look like. To be fair, he didn't agree with the ToE, but knew enough about it to know that I wasn't spinning him a line.

"A transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa."

Of course once I started pouring on the fossils that meet this criteria he backtracked faster than a paddlesteamer going over a waterfall.

Mark

Jimmy Davies

[Joe Meert [/B][/QUOTE] Hi again, Joe. Guess I am lost here. I can't follow the reasoning, but, respectfully, lemme explain.

If I am a creationist, my contention is there was no evolution. Your asking a creationist what sort of evidence he would find acceptable shows the absurdity of your request.

If there is no evolution, there can be no evidence for evolution. There are no transitional fossils to describe, just like there are no unicorns or dragons or cool Japanese rock stars to describe. Since OJ did it, there can only be false evidence that he did not do it. Colombian drug lords exist, but because they do, and because they have been documented to kill people doesn't logically follow they must have killed Nicole and Ron Goldman.

Transitional fossil evidence does not exist because it cannot exist because there was no evolution. A creature resembling transition in any way, only does so out of happenstance, like Neanderthals, who are really misdated humans of squat, robust stature.

Asking a creationist to describe a transitional fossil is like asking him to describe one of Tolkein's orcs.

This asking them to describe doesn't make sense to me in another way---in what way don't the whale fossils discovered in the Himalyan foothills NOT represent a whale ancestor???????

Albion

You've been spending too much time around Chris Groves, Jimmy!

Joe Meert

JM: You're not lost, it's just not that easy to follow creationist logic. In this particular case, the challenge was basically "If you can provide me (the creationist) evidence of a transitional, then I'll consider evolution". Now, ostensibly that means the creationist was willing to thoughtfully consider the evidence (note: I'm trying to keep from laughing as I type these words). So I asked, "Ok, since you've admitted you're willing to consider the evidence, why not tell me what sort of evidence you would find convincing and I'll tell you if I have it". I think the point of misunderstanding is that this particular creationist at least claimed he would listen to evidence if I could provide it. I was merely trying to clarify what evidence he would listen to?

Cheers

Joe Meert

Albion

Well, sometimes it's good to push this one to its logical conclusion just so the creationist realises that he's asking for the impossible. Sometimes he's just repeated the question from a creationist website with no input of thought on his own behalf; he's just been told that evolutionists will cave on hearing this challenge, so he throws out the challenge and expects a response along the lines of "but there must be transitionals, my atheism depends on it!" Once you can get him to admit that he really wants to see an animal with half a wing, half a lung, half an eye, a beak, teeth, and leaves, since that's what creationists seem to think transitionals look like, and you point out that far from constituting proof or even support, the existence of such an individual would be a rather serious problem for evolution, either there's a swift change of subject or the conversation ends.

Jimmy Davies

Hi Old Posting Buddy! Do I call you Albion here, exclusively, or can I call you what I have always called you on the BBC? I won't call you Sweetie, so don't worry about that. I always just post as me, mainly because any nutcase wants to track me down, more power to him, he'll be entering an area with the highest murder rate in the United States. Never even make my front door. Never even know he was here.

Hell, the stray neighborhood dogs will probably drag him off and bury him alive somewhere. (Maybe that's what happened to Michelene...) Fifty thousand years from now sciency types will dig up the body and exclaim, "Now what the Sam Hill (or will they be saying Anita Hill then?) happened to this poor SOB?" Little late for contacting loved ones, y'think?

But, answer my sciency question! What is wrong with the whale fossils recently found? How come the creationist boys don't get those rubbed across their reality hostile snouts?

That was for the Major. I'm gonna post "the Popeye Post" tomorrow on Freethought. Might wanna be there.

Jimmy Davies

Sounds like one daft creationist. Is he anything like the one on another thread thought there was a word spelled "alot?"