Question 1: The Fossil Record

[Simon]

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms "is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

[Simon]

For those reading the conversation, notice that Nyril here has misunderstood the fact that facts are thing we believe; they are not things we fact. Also notice that he has failed to answer the questions posed, and instead has gone on to talk about other conversations he has had with other people rather than the one he was having with me.

[potwalloper.]

We also note that you haven't yet defined a "transitional" fossil form...

[Nyril]

Lets post the entire sentence. I'll leave the parts bolded that I bolded.

My beliefs regarding the fact that we have no evidene in the fossil record of one species evolving into another have to do with the fossil record, and have nothing to do with the Bible.

It's a belief, not a fact. Two of us have gone out of our way and posted several pages worth of such materials together against your statement, and number of times people have asked to to define precisely what it is you're looking for. In each instance, we've been ignored.

For those reading the conversation, notice that Nyril here has misunderstood the fact that facts are thing we believe; they are not things we fact.

You know facts. Simply having belief in a fact is not the same as knowing a fact. In this instance, your statement would be equivalent to me saying that I believe in the fact that the world revolves around a large piece of cheese centered somewhere around Marlin Brando. It is very clearly a belief in this instance, not a fact.

Also notice that he has failed to answer the questions posed, and instead has gone on to talk about other conversations he has had with other people rather than the one he was having with me.

Which question? Bring it out, I'll answer it.

While you're at it:

Perfessor asked:

What would you need to see in a fossil, before you would call it a transitional or intermediate?

Gaunt Seconded:

Simon, perfessor asked but you may have missed it. How do you define a transitional fossil?

Potwalloper concurred:

A definition of an "intermediate" or "transitional" fossil form still appears to be rather lacking here. So I repeat Gaunt's question once again:

Here's #4:
Could you please define the term so more meaningful debate can occur?

(Edit: Potwalloper beat me to it, that would make my request #5, not #4. But it was indeed correct while I was writing it)

[Simon]

For those reading, note that in order to know something you have to believe it.

[Nyril]

For those reading, note that in order to know something you have to believe it.

It's not required.

If I tell you that I went down to Wal-mart and purchased enough X-mas lights such that I no longer need the big florescent bulbs to light my dorm as they're bright enough to illuminate my room, you may not believe it, but you do know that I said it.

In this instance, you know what I said, but you do not believe what I said. Thus, one instance of knowing something you don't believe.

If anyone's curious, I can provide pictures, its actually rather pretty, but unfortunately I lack the means to host them myself.

[Simon]

Notice that Nyril is here being deceptive on purpose. For instance, I know that P said he did x and I believe that P said he did x. That I may not believe that P did x (even though I know he said he did) does not mean that every act of knowing is not also an act of believing. Do not be fooled.

24 replies to this thread, and not one has adequately addressed or answered the questions posted in the thread. Instead you've got one guy trying to tell you that knowing is not believing and all the rest pretending not to know what I mean by transitional forms. Sad.

[bernee51]

For those reading, note that in order to know something you have to believe it.

Please note that Simon appears to believe that if you stick your fingers in your ears and shout NAH NAH NAH loudly you don't have to hear questions you cannot or will not answer.

[potwalloper.]

For those reading, note that in order to know something you have to believe it.

and you still ain't defined transitional fossil forms...

...my assumption has to be that you have no such definition

[Jose]

This is getting silly, and is moving toward the low end of civility.

How about we give up on the questions of whether any of us can read, listen, or express ourselves adequately, or whatever side arguments come up, and think about the question at hand. I believe that Simon has posted an important question. It is important because many creationists ask that question. Their answer to that question informs their beliefs about evolution and creation.

Unfortunately, the answers that have been given seem not to convince Simon, who has taken the stance that the question has not yet been addressed. Apparently, we can't address Simon's question without knowing more precisely what Simon means. That is, we need to know Simon's definition of a transitional fossil. Until you tell us, Simon, we're at an impasse.

[Lotan]

Let's put an end to this silliness right now, shall we?
As some have suspected, the recent threads initiated by Simon aren't his own ideas, but William Dembski's.

None are valid questions anyway, just the usual pseudoscience tactic of creating a mystery where none, in fact, exists (eg. There are examples of transitional fossils. Evolution is testable. Organisms evolve to suit their environment, so they appear to be designed, etc.)

Thanks for nothing, Simon.