alt.education

Andre Lieven wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:40 pm, Elmer shot out
> his feet:
>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>> Elmer wrote:
>>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:47:40 -0500, buck2thrice
>>>>> spake thusly:
>>>>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>>>>> Gee, I wonder which idea takes more faith?
>>>>>>> 1) An intelligent being created highly intricate beings.
>>>>>> But that's not the whole story! More specifically your belief
>>>>>> states that god made man from dust! It's as simple (impossible)
>>>>>> as that.
>>>>> Listen, dumb ass! You obviously can't read!
>>>>> Either God created us from dirt, which speaks of
>>>>> Divine intervention, or, goo did it all by itself!
>>>>> Now which do you think makes more sense, idiot?!
>>>> Davey, please calm down.
>>>> Now, what is your definition of a transitional fossil? What
>>>> characteristics would it need to show you to *be* considered by you to
>>>> be a transitional fossil?
>>> Its up to the believer in the 'transitional fossil' myth to answer that
>>> question.
>> No. It's up to the one claiming that none exist.
>
> Fallacy of Proving a Negative. You lose.
>
> Oh, I just heard from god that you are a massive retard.
>
> PROVE that god didn't tell me that...
>
> Petard. Hoist. YOU.
>
> Andre

Nope. He claims that transitional forms do not exist. That is a positive claim
that he knows *what* they are and the scientific evidence for them and that none
so far identified by science as "transitional" actually are transitional.

What I have been trying to get from creationists is an actual definition of
"transitional", because they say none exist, and if they are honest, then they
must admit that science says they do exist, and therefore their definition must
be different from science's.