Oolon Colluphid

Here’s from the current issue of Nature (418, 767 - 770 (2002)). I’ve highlighted the bits relevant for us.

It must be a bastard being a creationist these days...

Hey, who was it who wheeled out the ‘no transitional fossils’ line recently? Vanderzyden? Primemover?

Whoever... just a reminder that gaps do not matter; what vindicates evolution is that former gaps keep getting closed as predicted. End. Of. Story.

Cheers, Oolon

bluefugue

Eh, it's just another species. Only the naturalistic presupposition of Darwinists labels it "transitional."

I notice the Chinese have been finding a lot of these "transitionals" lately, as well. They are a country of atheists. Coincidence? I don't think so...

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

I know (at least I hope I know) you’re kidding, ID (hey, those’re unfortunate initials! ), but if they take that line (and you’re right, they probably would/will), then it begs the usual demand, to wit:

“Bloody well ‘define’ ‘transitional’. You reckon there aren’t (can’t be) any; so what would count as one?! Prove that your ‘no transitionals’ is refutable (and not a straw man).”

Cheers, Oolon

bluefugue

Why that's simple, Oolon, and you know it. The fossil of a pregnant rodent-like creature with the fossil of a chimp-like creature still in the womb would be a perfect example of a transitional.

Or, a sequence of say 100 fossils at 10,000 year intervals, showing the development of an "irreducible" structure like a bacterial flagellum or an eyeball. Oh wait -- structures like that don't fossilize. Another convenient loophole for Darwinists.

Not that it would matter, of course, because 10,000 year intervals are impossible to prove, since radiometric dating is hopelessly flawed...

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

D’oh! Of course! How stupid of me!

Gotta go, Hovind’s holding a service...

Oolon

Synaesthesia

Ah ha! But you evolutionists are caught now, for two NEW missing links have been created!

Synaesthesia

"Not that it would matter, of course, because 10,000 year intervals are impossible to prove, since radiometric dating is hopelessly flawed..."

Ok, I swear before God that I'll mail you 20$ if you can demonstrate a basic competence in how radiometric dating works.

While you're up to it, you can point out the flaw with relation to how it works. EVEN if you are wrong about the flaw, I'll give you the money. That is, unless the 'flaw' exposes your ignorance.

Seriously. I am a poor student, but I'll cut into my booze budget to pay you or I'll eat my foot. This is a generous offer.

(Btw, They are transitional because they are morphologically intermediate, AND because we know things evolve. Not because we presuppose it.)


Easy 20 bucks, just demonstrate that you aren't ignorant.

That should be easy since you know more than the thuosands of people who earn their PhD's in the field. SURELY you're competent.

PS, Anyone else want to contribute to the pool?

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

MrDarwin

It's still just a fish. There's no evidence that it ever turned into an amphibian.

Synaesthesia

After looking at a few of IesusDomini's other posts, I have decided that time is up, the offer is no longer valid...

Dan828

Creationist: If evolution is true, show us the transitional fossils.

Evolutionist: Here you go, it's a bird with dinosaur like features.

C: It's just a bird, show me transitional fossils.

E: Here you go, it's a fish with amphibian like features.

C: It's just a fish, show me transitional fossils.

E: Here you go, it's an ape, with human like features.

C: It's just an ape, why can't you Darwinists come up with any transitional fossils?



[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Dan828 ]

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Dan828 ]</p>