News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Talk Origins Deceptions - CC200: No Transitional Fossils

In perusing the talk origins website for some time now, I felt compelled to expose some of the continuing deceptive tactics used on that website to attempt to indoctrinate their impressionable audience.

Continued: http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A

There have been a number of threads covering this. I think this was probably the best:

Transitions -- telling truth from lies

Anyone who wants to carry on in this thread would IMO benefit from reading this in order not to re-hash the same conversations.

The talk origins article is clearly deceptive.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A

Nuh-uh!!!!


I had forgotten about that one!

From the post referenced above:


What is the original (correct) definition of "transitional"? You know...the one that Talk Origins redefined.

What biology, paleontology or evolution book/paper/website contains that definition?

What features of a fossil would clearly show that it is a "transitional"?

For any thinking person, calling fossils "transitional" without requiring them to show signs of being transitional is openly and blatantly deceptive.

Yes readers, you read the article right.

Talk origins claims that the only requirement to call a fossil "transitional" is this:



This is so blatant that I will leave it up to the reader to make this observation for themselves:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A

What is deeply ironic is that they (talk origins) accuse creationists of redefining the word "transitional". This is astounding considering that talk origins does it in the same paragraph.

Consider this simple, common sense question:

Don't you think a "transitional fossil" should show clear signs of being from a transitional form?

Clearly, fossils that have "a mosaic of [similar] features" does not prove that they are transitional. It does not even infer that they are transitional.

This logic is not only a scientific deception, it is deceptive even on the basis of common human communication.

It is like saying that a ceiling fan has blades so it must be a jet turbine engine.

You obviously disagree with this definition. So, maybe you will answer my question: What is the original (correct) definition of "transitional"? You know...the one that Talk Origins redefined.

And those "clear signs" would be what exactly? For example, if a transitional existed between reptiles and mammals, what "clear signs" should we see to identify it as a transitional form?

Do you believe that "mosaic of features" is the only criteria that paleontologists use to classify a fossil as a transitional?

I already told you.

A fossil should only be called "transitional" if it is from a transitional form.

Well, since no transitional forms exist, and since transitional forms are required to maintain faith in the religion of evolution, talk origins -- and other evolution believers -- redefines the very concept of "transitional" to a wide-open definition so as to be blatantly deception.

Now, using their new definition, they can claim that "transitional" fossils exist simply because they have found "similar" fossils.

This is plain dishonesty. It certainly should not be considered within the realm of science.



You should know.

Let me help you.

First of all, because their are -- supposedly -- a very high ratio of harmful mutations to beneficial ones, we should find an enormous number of fossils that contain harmful mutations.

We don't.

We should also consider whether or not there really is such a concept as a beneficial mutation.

When you actually try to name one, you have to develop supporting subsystems with internal feedback mechanisms with supporting structures on multiple levels.

We all know that complex subsystems don't just form from a single mutation. So then you have to claim that each individual mutation forms a "part" that will later become part of a bigger, more complex system, and in order for this new "part" to prevent getting "selected out" by "natural selection", it must serve some beneficial function.

So you then paint yourself into a corner -- as do all religious cult beliefs -- that each and every part of every system and every subsystem and every feedback machanism upon every structure served a "beneficial" function at one time all by itself.

This problem becomes so absurd, that once a person is exposed to it, if they cannot see the absurdity of evolution, they can only be categorized as one of the following:

(1) Blinded (unable to think rationally) by their own overwhelming desires for evolution to be true,

(2) Blinded (unable to think rationally) by their fear of what others would think if they departed from a mainstream belief system, or

(3) Blinded (unable to think rationally) by their fear that such a large hoax could be perpetrated upon the world.

In any case, the evolution "believer" is unable to think rationally.

This is not an insult. I do not intend to insult people.

I tell the truth simply because the need for truth supersedes the need for emotional satisfaction in any civilized culture.

The current seduction leading the masses into emotionalism is leading to irrational behavior on a grand scale.

In short, your question cannot be answered in its current form because there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.

Why?

Because complex systems, subsystems, and feedback mechanisms were designed to work together. If you change (mutate) any part of a system, it operates less efficiently or breaks down completely.

Short-sighted humans often claim that certain changes to nature are beneficial, but eventually come to realize that they are not beneficial at all.

Think genetically-engineered foods, for example.



There are none. The question is nonsensical and rhetorical -- which was my original point.

Systems are many parts working together.

Unless you believe that complex, interrelated systems form in a single mutation, you cannot rationally believe in evolution.



Yes, and according to the talk origins website, that is exactly the definition they use.

To you believe the talk origins website to be incorrect?

I asked what the original definition was, not your opinion about what it should be. You said the definition was changed by Talk Origins. What was the original definition?

No it's not. Until you provide documentation of the "original" definition of a transitional fossil, your opinion on this matter carries no weight.

It is plain dishonesty to claim that you have evidence of the alteration of a definition then refuse to produce that evidence.

This is not answering my question. However, it does bring up a question or two. How would the fossil of a baby dinosaur that died from diabetes differ from one that died from drowning, or heart disease? What changes in morphology are you expecting in the harmful mutations? Out of all the animals that have lived on this Earth, what percentage do you suppose have been fossilized?



From: This site



You have not shown that entire systems have to be built by one mutation and the example I provided did not require that either. Your requirement of the need to build whole subsystems in one shot is refuted by real evidence.

Yes you do. That entire tirade prior to your claim that it is not an insult was one big emotional appeal. You use it to categorize evolutionists as lesser beings. Of course no one wants to be a lesser being so they must believe as you do to avoid that.

You say this despite evidence to the contrary.

Which is why dwarfism in canines resulted in the less efficient terrier breed. It's a good thing we humans found a use for them that overcame their inefficiencies.

Baloney! How can you claim that a fossil is not a transitional unless you have some idea what "clear signs" a transitional should have? That's like saying a particular machine is not an automobile but you cannot say what the characteristics of an automobile are. How would you know?

You have not shown that this is necessary for evolution or beneficial mutation and I have shown at least one example where it is not necessary. Repeating your statements over and over does not make them less inaccurate.

No, but it is incomplete. The transitional fossil must be a fossil from a sediment between the organisms for which it is suggested to be a transitional. Their are likely to be other criteria but I am not completely familiar with them.

You are lying. You are being disingenuous.

I am not surprised that judgement will soon come on this world considering the arrogance it is full of.

The hard fold fact is this:

It is a lie to call a fossil "transitional" when there is no proof that it came from a transitional form.

And to justify usage of the word "transitional" simply because fossils have similar features is plainly, blatantly, clearly, undeniably, deceptive.

You certainly must know this.

Again, I will point our trusty onlookers (most who DO have integrity) to the deceptive talk origins article about this subject.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A

As for you: I have lost all confidence that you have integrity.

Didn't you say that Talk Origins changed the definition of "transitional fossil"?

Just read my article.

If you're still confused, let me know.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A

I read it again....still couldn't find where you showed what the original definition of "transitional fossil" is.

However, this quote is where you stated:
Actually, what they were doing is providing a definition of "transitional fossil"



So, you indicate that Talk Origins was "redefining" the word transitional. In order to know that they redefined the word you must know what the definition was before they redefined it.
Where can I look to find this definition? Some evolution textbook perhaps?

I already explained that it's deceptive to call a fossil transitional unless it's meant to imply that it came from a "transitional" form.

What exactly are you missing?



You are clearly being disingenuous.

I am closing this thread.

By the way, here is the statement that I make in the article that explains what the definition of "transitional form" should be, if they were having integrity...