No. It is a redefinition of transitional. This is perfectly clear. (Let the reader observe and decide.)

Why can't see this? Is it because you so desire evolution to be true?



No. This is simply not true.

The reason we use the word "transition" is because these fossils are supposed to provide evidence of transitional forms.

They (talk origins) redefine "transitional" to a new broad definition in order to avoid having to show us any real evidence of transitional forms. The tactic they are using is perfectly clear and very common among disinformation providers.

The fact is, we have no fossils that provide clear evidence of transitional forms. We only have mosaics. These are not evidence of transitional forms and should not be called "transitional fossils". The use of the word "transitional" in this context is deceptive and makes the reader think they are seeing evidence of transitional forms when they are actually seeing nothing more than mosaics.

In a word: Deceptive!

These fossils listed on talk origins show differences that are so large that they cannot possibly be caused by a single (or even a small number of) mutation. In fact, when you consider that most of these changes are symmetrical, you have to admit that they simply cannot be explained by mutation processes because of simple mathematical improbability?

Saying an ear formed on both sides of this jaw. An ear formed? Do you know how many changes that entails, not to mention that they are symmetrical.

The ridiculousness of these claims are off-scale.

Truly. Creationist or not, biased or not, this simply is not science. It is broad speculation; Fairy tales for grownups.

Your position is not defensible nor is it intellectually honest. It is politics, not science.



Of course, the categorization of creatures is a function of human interpretation. More mundane is the assumption that deeper layers are older. It is well known that this is not only untrue, but it is the basis for the so-called fossil record.

We should not be so naive.

The so-called fossil record is based on broad, assumptive speculation and circular reasoning, not evidence.



Your position is steeped in deep denial.

The real question, without all the semantics, is:

Have fossils been found that provide strong enough evidence to be called "transitional fossils", i.e., that provide strong evidence that transitional forms existed?

I deal with this issue in my previous post. Even the talk origins website admits that this cannot be proven. Furthermore, finding mosaics provides no evidence for transitions. Claiming that they do (as the talk origins website does) is dishonest.

Therefore, by their own admission, there are no transitional fossils, unless of course you redefine the meaning of the phrase "transitional fossils" to mean "mosaics", which of course, is exactly what they've done.

I honestly can't believe I have to argue this point. It's right there in front of you.



Of course, but that's not necessary to provide strong evidence for the existence of transitional forms which is exactly what they are claiming to do. Providing mosaics (the exact word talk origins actually uses) is not sufficient to show transitional forms and therefore these fossils should not be called transitional fossils. This is plainly dishonest.



Because sediments are not linear in time and they are often not even sequential. This is one of the huge ridiculous assumptions about the so-called fossil record that Hovind effectively points out. ( http://urlbam.com/ha/K )

Any honest scientist has to admit that the fossil record is based on junk science and is no more credible than the claimed cause of global warming or a flat Earth. ( http://urlbam.com/ha/M001k )



(1) Predictions made about the sediments are not always accurate (but they don't tell you that) and most likely have everything to do with density and habitat, not timelines, but they never bring that up either.

(2) What subsequent finds? All of this supporting evidence that they present in page after page of the talk origins website uses exactly the same kind of assumptive association that may be emotionally appealing, but it is not science.



Because the categorization of those sediments as precambrian is a fallacy based on enormous assumptions and circular reasoning. The dating of the sediment layers is simply junk science designed to support the evolution faith. This is a subject in and of itself that deserves exposure, not unlike the science that shows that mercury in vaccines is safe or that amalgam fillings don't leak mercury.

Again, this is typical soviet-style indoctrination.

They distribute false information and then base conclusions on that information, and then they use the acceptability (emotional appeal) of the conclusions as evidence that the original (false) information was correct.

Again, this is not science and it is not even honest.

The talk origins website pages that I've read are generated in the same style as the junk-science found on the quackwatch website. They have no credibility.

The sad part is that many people are sucked into this type of fanatical reasoning because they are incapable of viewing information objectively. Their objectivity is destroyed by their desire—psychology 101.

Nothing complicated here. Simply propaganda being used to accomplish a political end.

Evolution is a social control.

Why was the flat Earth myth promoted:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M001F