quote:
Peter Borger, he say
PB: No, you don't get it. If I would agree with a definition from an evolutionary stance I would agree with evolutionism and I would deny my own paradigm. Since the two paradigms are not compatible,
we live in a different worlds.
Let's see now ... you won't say what you think an evolutionary
transitional fossil would be in case we think you believe
in evolutionism???
The question asked is::
'If evolution is an accurate description of the emergence of
diversity of life, then we should expect to find some transitional
forms in the fossil record. What would one expect to find
in a fossil that would indicate that it might be a transitional
fossil in an evolutionary sense?'
This does not require you to accept the evolutionary paradigm,
but to explore it. That, afterall, is the guts of scientific
enquiry ... propose an idea, make predictions about what should
be found if the proposition is correct, see if the evidence
matches the predictions.
If you will not accept 'our' definition of what an evolutionary
transitional fossil would look like, supply one yourself.
If you do accept 'our' definition of the above, show us why the
evidence does not match.
List for us the predictions for fossil evidence that your paradigm
has, then show us whether there is data to affirm the predictions.
(Got me formatting wrong so edited
)
[This message has been edited by Peter, 02-12-2003]