(April 25, 2014 at 5:57 am)orogenicman Wrote:(April 25, 2014 at 12:42 am)Esquilax Wrote: But it doesn't seem transitional to creationists, mostly because they never bother to define their terms in anything other than vagaries, specifically so they can move the goalposts like this.
We're arguing over a scientific term- transitional form- with somebody who doesn't care about science at all; of course there's going to be difficulties. Rev's idea of scientific is "what seems intuitively right to me at the time."
The bulk of creationists are not scientists. As such, they don't get to define scientific terms, particularly outside of published scientific journals and scientific organizations.
By the way, the entire argument about transitional fossils is bogus. Yes, it is very important that we search for transitional fossils in the fossil record in order to give as complete a history of organisms in the fossil record as possible. But whether we find them for all species or any particular species is irrelevant to the question of evolution. Why? Because ALL species are, by convention as well as by definition, transitional. There is no ambiguity with regard to species being transitional. They are.
There are many Christians who are brilliant. There are scientists and college professors who believe in God and question what they were taught but are scared to share this in fear of being ostracized.
