Creationists believe that speciation is impossible, and that there are no transitionals (or intermediates).
Only by a definition which is carefully constructed to support the theory of evolution is ring species an example of speciation. The two non-interbreeding end-of-ring species are still the same kind of animal. The only reason that they are a different species is because the word species is defined as "Non interbreeding."
So to say that the two ends of a ring species are different species really is a little shaky (although popular) because the animals are really all the same kind. Evidence of this is that they are all interbreedable around the long way of the ring.
Maybe Creationists are skeptical of transitional because the best transitional species in evidence just don't provide much to be desired?
Lets say the Creationist is right, and that God did create each kind of animal. In that case, we would still see genetic drift in ring species, which could cause the open ends of the ring to be noninterbreedable, and yet they would still be the same kind of animal.
So it sure looks to me like the idea that a ring species somehow proves evolution only works if evolution is already proven. This, Sir, is circular reasoning. No pun intended.
As to transitional species, I do wonder why we don't see the thousands of missing links in the fossil record. The fossil record plus the living evidence just don't provide much evidence without needing a lot of hope for things not seen (In other words, faith.)
Thanks,
-Jesse
"Missing link" is a newspaper term, not a scientific term. What we do see in the fossil record are "transitionals" -- and there are a lot of them.
If you can deny their existence, after having been shown the evidence in popular science magazines and television programs for decades it can only be that you choose, for religious reasons, not to accept that evidence.
But it won't make that evidence go away.