Re: A question for creationists.

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Feb 26, 12:05 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 3:38 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 25, 1:28 pm, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 25, 3:05 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 25, 3:36 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've posted this in response to adman's drivel, and rather
predictably he has gone all quiet.

So let's address this to any creationist who claims that there
are no transitional forms in the fossil record.

What do *you* think evolutionary theory predicts as a
transitional form between say, a modern bird and a theropod
dinosaur? What characters should we expect to find in such a
animal? If someone showed you with a fossil which they thought
was a transitional form, how would *you* decide if it met the
criteria you apply for making such a determination?

Look, Darwin told us (IIRC) that IF we could assemble every
species that ever lived, and displayed them, parent and
offspring, they would form an unconnected chain, where a person
would be unable to discern any real break (not counting
extinctions).

but the question asked of you was, how would you recognize parts of
the chain that represent species that are no longer living if you
saw one? you didnt answer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What chain?

We don't see any chain. What YOU see is an illusion caused by the
power of Mastermind. I am simply explaining what YOU and Darwin
believe to exist, that is, explaining why you believe what you
believe. In reality: you and Darwin are deluded; we have no idea as
to what you are talking about when you start talking about common
ancestry, connectedness or intermediacy. Again, we are explaining
why you believe what you believe. Connectedness is an illusion.
Please note that the explanation shields you from being labeled as
liars.

...which still doesn't answer the question.

You are claiming that no transitional forms exist.


We are saying the concept has no correspondence to any *thing* (=
species) in reality, past or present.

IF evolution is true, all species should be transitional. Why do
Evolutionists look for evidence of transition if all species are the
products of transmutation?


~~~~~~~~~~~

And THAT is why they know evolution is bull***.

1/2 of them say "All fossils are transitional" because evolution happens so
slowly.

( Well then, why even bother to look for something that clearly shows the
species transforming when it cannot be found)

--- while the other half is out looking for transitional as proof of species
transforming.

<sarcasm>

Quite the paradox that evolution is.

But hey, THEY are scientists!

So WHO are you to argue with THEM Ray?

Don't you know that you are ignorant compared to them?

</sarcasm>


--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~









To be able to make that claim you need to set criteria by which you
could determine hypothetically if a fossil is a transitional form.


Concept Of "Transitional Form"

My worldview does not allow the concept to exist. On the other hand
the Atheism worldview requires the concept to exist. My mind is open
to the concept to the same degree that the Atheist mind is open to the
concept of Genesis special creation.

A mind brainwashed by the Bible (= mine) and minds brainwashed by
Atheism (= Darwinism) SEE things quite differently.

The facts established in the two paragraphs above create a question:
since reality or existence is not dependent upon perception to exist,
one party is deluded. How do we determine which party is deluded?

If you refuse to set any such criteria, how can you deny that any
fossil is a transitional form?



What we see is **each species** having direct vertical
correspondence to the power and mind of invisible Creator----that's
what we see.

...which still doesn't answer the question.

You are claiming that no transitional forms exist.

To be able to make that claim you need to set criteria by which you
could determine hypothetically if a fossil is a transitional form.

If you refuse to set any such criteria, how can you deny that any
fossil is a transitional form?

RF





Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray

.

Loading