What makes a transitional organism transitional?

[The Barbarian]

21 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

I posted a video that I said supported my claims. 

I'm not the only person who found it to be junk.   If you think there's something therein that supports your claims, put it here, and we'll talk about it.   But I didn't see anything of the kind, well into the video.  It appears that you just threw up a random creationist video, and have refused to show us anything in it that relates to your claims.

21 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

I don't believe in the THEORY of evolution because it isn't science and there is no evidence for it.

Gravitation is a theory too.   But don't go walking off high cliffs.   All theories are science, because in order to be theories their predictions must first be repeatedly confirmed by evidence.   Theories are stronger than laws in science, because theories predict and explain phenomena, while laws predict, but do not explain.

21 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

If you can't give any evidence at all for transitional species

You've already seen it.   Even many YE creationists admit the fact of transitional fossils and species:

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

21 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

I certainly am done here. 

Yep.  Until you provide some evidence for your claims, it's over.

21 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

I won't be responding to anything you have to say

This is how these things usually end.   Creationist promises of evidence, but nothing forthcoming.  

Edited September 2, 2022 by The Barbarian

[Dave-regenerated]

2 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I'm not the only person who found it to be junk.   If you think there's something therein that supports your claims, put it here, and we'll talk about it.   But I didn't see anything of the kind, well into the video.  It appears that you just threw up a random creationist video, and have refused to show us anything in it that relates to your claims.

Gravitation is a theory too.   But don't go walking off high cliffs.   All theories are science, because in order to be theories their predictions must first be repeatedly confirmed by evidence.   Theories are stronger than laws in science, because theories predict and explain phenomena, while laws predict, but do not explain.

You've already seen it.   Even many YE creationists admit the fact of transitional fossils and species:

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Yep.  Until you provide some evidence for your claims, it's over.

This is how these things usually end.   Creationist promises of evidence, but nothing forthcoming.  

So you aren't done here yet then?  I predicted you would try to get the last word in and I was right.

Your posts of this person Kurt Wise only seem to show up on a Google search under your own posts.  Could it be that Kurt Wise is in the minority?

There's really no need to be condescending where it comes to the definition of science, as if you are in some special club of intellectuals that has the only true definition of it.  I get it, you talk down to people a lot.  That's a very ugly trait in a person.  You might want to do some more work on yourself in that area.

What you don't seem to be understanding here is that I did provide evidence in the form of a video you did not seem to watch and you want me to regurgitate the points made in it in writing for you here so that you think you can knock down the arguments point by point by going back and forth endlessly.  I'm not playing that GAME.  So man up and admit that the video I provided did give evidence to counter your anti God and anti Bible claims of the THEORY of evolution.  

No, sorry, you did not provide any evidence of transitional fossils at all.  It probably sucks to realise you have no evidence when you finally admit it to yourself, but that's reality.

[The Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

Your posts of this person Kurt Wise only seem to show up on a Google search under your own posts.  Could it be that Kurt Wise is in the minority?

He's a young Earth creationist who has a doctorate in paleontology.   He actually knows what he's talking about, only he prefers his interpretation of Genesis to the evidence, and says so.   So yes, a minority.

5 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

There's really no need to be condescending where it comes to the definition of science, as if you are in some special club of intellectuals that has the only true definition of it. 

Forget trying to be an intellectual.  It's really not complicated at all in principle.   It's a method, like plumbing.   The hard part is in learning all the facts, getting competent in math and stat, and recognizing how basic principles apply in particular things.   It takes work and practice.    Pretty much like plumbing.

At the bottom, it's like

"What was that?"

"Maybe it's ....."    (hypothesis)

"How would we know?"

"Well, if ......., then ......" (confirmation that the hypothesis is testable)

"Let's find out."

"Nope.  Not that."

"Maybe...." (repeat as needed)

"We'll check."

"Hey, that's what it is."

(others check and find the same thing)

"Well, that's what it is."  (a theory is born)

Doesn't seem like a very intellectual thing to me.

12 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

I get it, you talk down to people a lot.

Funny how people who do that, always think someone else does it, um?

13 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

What you don't seem to be understanding here is that I did provide evidence in the form of a video

If you don't understand it well enough to summarize the evidence here, what makes you think it's right?   I didn't find anything that supported your claims therein.   And since you refuse to tell us what that is...

15 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

  So man up and admit that the video I provided did give evidence to counter your anti God and anti Bible claims of the THEORY of evolution.  

As you learned, Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.   So you have that wrong, too.

15 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

No, sorry, you did not provide any evidence of transitional fossils at all. 

There's really no point in denying the fact.  Not only did I show you evidence, I showed you that even some of your fellow YE creationists admit that the many transitional fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

If you ever do find some evidence for your claims, come on back and show us, hear?

 

[Dave-regenerated]

38 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

He's a young Earth creationist who has a doctorate in paleontology.   He actually knows what he's talking about, only he prefers his interpretation of Genesis to the evidence, and says so.   So yes, a minority.

Forget trying to be an intellectual.  It's really not complicated at all in principle.   It's a method, like plumbing.   The hard part is in learning all the facts, getting competent in math and stat, and recognizing how basic principles apply in particular things.   It takes work and practice.    Pretty much like plumbing.

At the bottom, it's like

"What was that?"

"Maybe it's ....."    (hypothesis)

"How would we know?"

"Well, if ......., then ......" (confirmation that the hypothesis is testable)

"Let's find out."

"Nope.  Not that."

"Maybe...." (repeat as needed)

"We'll check."

"Hey, that's what it is."

(others check and find the same thing)

"Well, that's what it is."  (a theory is born)

Doesn't seem like a very intellectual thing to me.

Funny how people who do that, always think someone else does it, um?

If you don't understand it well enough to summarize the evidence here, what makes you think it's right?   I didn't find anything that supported your claims therein.   And since you refuse to tell us what that is...

As you learned, Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.   So you have that wrong, too.

There's really no point in denying the fact.  Not only did I show you evidence, I showed you that even some of your fellow YE creationists admit that the many transitional fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

If you ever do find some evidence for your claims, come on back and show us, hear?

 

Until you provide evidence for transitional fossils and species that are alive at the present time, I can't communicate with you properly.  The examples you gave (of which there were about 8 or so) are simply just not evidence of transitional fossils, as any sane person would immediately see.  I feel so sad for you (and I genuinely mean that).  THe desperate attempts that evolutionists resort to to attempt to show that their unobservable theoretical criteria supposing evidence for transitional fossils and the origin of life is pathetic.  Absolutely pathetic.

[Dave-regenerated]

48 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

He's a young Earth creationist who has a doctorate in paleontology.   He actually knows what he's talking about, only he prefers his interpretation of Genesis to the evidence, and says so.   So yes, a minority.

Forget trying to be an intellectual.  It's really not complicated at all in principle.   It's a method, like plumbing.   The hard part is in learning all the facts, getting competent in math and stat, and recognizing how basic principles apply in particular things.   It takes work and practice.    Pretty much like plumbing.

At the bottom, it's like

"What was that?"

"Maybe it's ....."    (hypothesis)

"How would we know?"

"Well, if ......., then ......" (confirmation that the hypothesis is testable)

"Let's find out."

"Nope.  Not that."

"Maybe...." (repeat as needed)

"We'll check."

"Hey, that's what it is."

(others check and find the same thing)

"Well, that's what it is."  (a theory is born)

Doesn't seem like a very intellectual thing to me.

Funny how people who do that, always think someone else does it, um?

If you don't understand it well enough to summarize the evidence here, what makes you think it's right?   I didn't find anything that supported your claims therein.   And since you refuse to tell us what that is...

As you learned, Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.   So you have that wrong, too.

There's really no point in denying the fact.  Not only did I show you evidence, I showed you that even some of your fellow YE creationists admit that the many transitional fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

If you ever do find some evidence for your claims, come on back and show us, hear?

 

I'm actually more interested in why you are a Roman Catholic.  Do you know the difference between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

 

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, Dave-regenerated said:

So you aren't done here yet then?  I predicted you would try to get the last word in and I was right.

Your posts of this person Kurt Wise only seem to show up on a Google search under your own posts.  Could it be that Kurt Wise is in the minority?

There's really no need to be condescending where it comes to the definition of science, as if you are in some special club of intellectuals that has the only true definition of it.  I get it, you talk down to people a lot.  That's a very ugly trait in a person.  You might want to do some more work on yourself in that area.

What you don't seem to be understanding here is that I did provide evidence in the form of a video you did not seem to watch and you want me to regurgitate the points made in it in writing for you here so that you think you can knock down the arguments point by point by going back and forth endlessly.  I'm not playing that GAME.  So man up and admit that the video I provided did give evidence to counter your anti God and anti Bible claims of the THEORY of evolution.  

No, sorry, you did not provide any evidence of transitional fossils at all.  It probably sucks to realise you have no evidence when you finally admit it to yourself, but that's reality.

Before you cry about people being condescending or whatever, perhaps you should review your own poor form in this thread.

Back on Monday, you posted:

"As for the thermodynamics and mathematics, I will give you proof in short order, and it has nothing to do with creationists." (My bold).

I'm not sure what "in short order" means to you, but I'd expect in less than where we are today, especially as you've still been active on this thread. 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Dave-regenerated said:

I'm actually more interested in why you are a Roman Catholic.

I'm more interested in why you said you would present evidence for your claims and now refuse to do so.   Tell us about that.

 

[The Barbarian]

3 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I'm not sure what "in short order" means to you, but I'd expect in less than where we are today, especially as you've still been active on this thread. 

I think it means "never."   I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.   He's not going to support his claims.

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Dave-regenerated said:

Until you provide evidence for transitional fossils and species that are alive at the present time, I can't communicate with you properly. 

I see.  You'd like to come clean about this and show us your evidence, but the Evil Barbarian© won't let you.   

Very convincing... almost as good as name-calling...

Absolutely pathetic.

Well, I wouldn't have said so, but yeah, kinda.

Edited September 2, 2022 by The Barbarian

[Dave-regenerated]

32 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I see.  You'd like to come clean about this and show us your evidence, but the Evil Barbarian© won't let you.   

Very convincing... almost as good as name-calling...

 

 

Well, I wouldn't have said so, but yeah, kinda.

Tell us when you were born again, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and renewed in your mind so that you were able to discern spiritual things that unbelievers aren't privy to?  I want a time and date and experience.  I don't want you to confuse water baptism with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Thank you for supplying that information in advance.