Changes

: Then we have the other quotes (such as in the article) from around the same time from various scientists, supporting the severe lack of transitional forms.  So why would it suddenly reverse direction and there start to be a swag of transitional forms?

: Then we have the other quotes (such as in the article) from around the same time from various scientists, supporting the severe lack of transitional forms.  So why would it suddenly reverse direction and there start to be a swag of transitional forms?

: What's "convenient" about it not being a conspiracy?  Your language betrays your bias.  But your analogy with magic is not bad, actually.  Scientists sometimes speak out against astrology, fortune telling, communicating with the dead, etc.  But nobody ever claims "conspiracy" with these; it's just that most scientists are of one mind on those issues, so they all tend to reinforce each other on them.  The same with creation.  I don't agree, of course, that creation is in the same basket as astrology etc, but in the minds of the scientists opposing creation, that's pretty much what they think.  So no reason to suppose a conspiracy.  Yet anti-creationists keep accusing creationists of claiming that, ''even though creationists don't claim that'', in order to denigrate them, and when creationists call them on it, rather than admit their error, they try and divert attention or excuse themselves with comments such as "how convenient".

: What's "convenient" about it not being a conspiracy?  Your language betrays your bias.  But your analogy with magic is not bad, actually.  Scientists sometimes speak out against astrology, fortune telling, communicating with the dead, etc.  But nobody ever claims "conspiracy" with these; it's just that most scientists are of one mind on those issues, so they all tend to reinforce each other on them.  The same with creation.  I don't agree, of course, that creation is in the same basket as astrology etc, but in the minds of the scientists opposing creation, that's pretty much what they think.  So no reason to suppose a conspiracy.  Yet anti-creationists keep accusing creationists of claiming that, ''even though creationists don't claim that'', in order to denigrate them, and when creationists call them on it, rather than admit their error, they try and divert attention or excuse themselves with comments such as "how convenient".

: I've seen lists of transitional fossils.  But with none of the examples provided can, in the word of Colin Patterson (in the article), with none can one make a watertight argument.  Just because they are ''claimed'' to be transitional does not make them so, and none really stand scrutiny.

: I've seen lists of transitional fossils (and one is referenced in the article).  But with none of the examples provided can, in the word of Colin Patterson (in the article), with none can one make a watertight argument.  Just because they are ''claimed'' to be transitional does not make them so, and none really stand scrutiny.

: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)

: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)