I was reading the FAQ page and one of the questions was why are there so few transitional fossils. Shouldn't the question be changed to Why have NO transitional fossils been found? Because not a single transitional fossil has been found, if you think I am wrong please e mail me and I will be happy to give you evidence that there are no transitional fossils.
Josiah
48 comments
"Shouldn't the question be changed to Why have NO transitional fossils been found?"
Didn't even bother to read the FAQ, did ya?
You really, really need to get help. Plus, the point you even discredit your fundy site is laughable. Really, show us this proof. Better yet, cite it. Give us this evidence.
But until then my Deja Moo detector is still on.
"...please e mail me and I will be happy to give you evidence that there are no transitional fossils."
You are going to do the impossible and prove a negative?
Rebellious Scot: "Plus, the point you even discredit your fundy site is laughable."
TalkOrigins is not a fundy site.
Heh, sorry. I've just kinda been lurking for a while. Now I'm deciding to comment.
A random question, what does a person need to do to get a quote posted here. I've told already so much :/
Thanks again.
"Because not a single transitional fossil has been found"
Try thousands, you lying shit.
Death in the Iron Maiden for you.
image
Considering that nearly every species is evolving at some rate, it would actually be safe to say that nearly every fossil ever found is a transitional in some way or another.
I was reading the FAQ page....
When you want to lie for Jesus, you get right to it, don't you?
@Rebellious Scot: "A random question, what does a person need to do to get a quote posted here. I've told already so much :/"
This old bullshit.
See here
If you invent your own creationist definition of "transition fossils" out of thin air, then it's no surprise that no one is going to meet it. Any time creationists think someone may have evidence against, them they just redefine words. Look at "kind" and "micro-evolution". They're defined as "anything that denies obvious examples of evolution, like nylon-eating bacteria, but doesn't lump humans and chimps together. The definition changes every time another piece of evidence is found.
This is the second quote today from the same source - an eight year old feedback page from talkorigins, and both of them were answered at the time by contributing authors to talkorigins. Obviously, it would be foolish to debate fundiness of these quotes, but finding them isn't much of a challenge.
I remember watching a show on science where a scientist had overheard a fundie talking about zero transitions (I think it was AiG he heard) and actually started laughing out loud at such a bizarre statement.
At that same time, a few people were in another room, having just discovered five new transitions, and they were almost to the point of fist fighting over what to call one of the new ones because of the characteristics it held with both forms that it would've transitioned.
All fossils are transitional. For that matter, WE will become transitional fossils if we somehow become preserved after death. That's how evolution works: Lifeforms are ALWAYS changing, albeit in small, almost unnoticeable ways.
Every single fossil is a transitional fossil, you silly boy!
Besides, fossilization is a very rare process. Most dead bodies just disintegrate with time.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
