Replies

There is ample evidence of transistional forms.

First, I am not a Creationist. I am however, quite intrigued by your desire to cast me as one. What are you hoping to accomplish by this repetative behavior?

Second, there is no evidence of a transitional form of any kind. I know, I know. You'll give us your link to talk.origins. Or better yet, you'll point to archaeopteryx. This is your transitional form? Please, give us the "evidence". It isn't as though we haven't all seen it in other threads of this kind. Your transitional forms, amazingly, are fully formed species. Assuming that they are evolutionary ancestors, one can invision the possible steps between known species A and known species B. It isn't a matter of wanting the forms between A and B, and so on ad infinitum. It is a simple desire for even a partially obvious pattern of morphological development. You need to understand something, in case you don't. The story of evolution in accounting for all of earth's biodiversity should have left millions of billions of fossils. Far more than enough to account for destructive geological activity. Even the tangential forms that didn't succeed should be found somewhere! The transitional forms are fully formed species and they are few and very far between. Sure, we can imagine how they might have gone from one stage to another. Does this mean they did? No! Jlogajan, why in the name of australopithecenes do you think Gould developed his punctuated equilibria model of evoultion? The LACK OF FOSSILS! The LACK of TRANSITIONAL FORMS! I am honestly stunned at how blindly committed you are to believing something so obviously false, but feel free to continue slinging your names at me all day long. And again, please address THIS ARTICLE, and stop trying to drag the thread off the original course. Thank you and have a great day!

First, I am not a Creationist.

sniker. yeah sure. ha ha ha.

Why do you creationists think it is so cool to be stealthy about being creationists? I've termed this "Liars for Christ." Apparently the goal of asserting the biblical accounting is so important that lying is justified in its pursuit.

Look, we all know that ID'ers and creationists what to turn science to their view -- and they've given up on just Biblical fire and brimestone because no one was buying it anymore, except the faithful.

So the only route into science is the so-called "objective neutrality." So creationists and ID'ers who are actually Biblical absolutists sneak around and pretend they are just students of "objective neutrality."

Hogwash. And besides, reality has certain characteristics. It is not open ended to any interpretation. One can reasonably deduce certain interpretations and STICK to that in the face of rather ridiculous claims to the contrary.

This whole notion that each Creationist/ID'er brain fart ought be entitled to a complete rehearing is laughable.

Produce the evidence FOR your view. Assaults agains evolution are just attempts to prove a negative and therefore a complete waste of time, since that is almost impossible to do.

So stop sneaking around pretending to be someone you aren't. If you believe in creation or ID (intelligent design) produce the fricking evidence for it!!!!!!!!

First, I am not a Creationist. I am however, quite intrigued by your desire to cast me as one. What are you hoping to accomplish by this repetative behavior?

Second, there is no evidence of a transitional form of any kind.

Interesting... You're emphatically NOT a creationist, yet you, against all evidence, emphatically claim there are NO transitional forms.

OK, so tell us: What DO you believe, exactly?

1. First, I am not a Creationist. . .

2. Second, there is no evidence of a transitional form of any kind.

BAAAAAZZZZZZZZT!

Sir, you're setting off the BS detector. Please let go of one of the above statements and go through the detector again.