His complaint seems to be that opponants twist 'scientific definitions' whereas they are actually evolutionist definitions of fossils found. If it is as I see it then its a complaint that rings hollow. "You may oppose but you must assume our definitions to correctly describe the fossil found"
Sort of. His real complaint appears to be that
if you are going to argue against what scientists say about their own fields, then you need to either argue within that context OR demonstrate that the premises are wrong. Simply changing the definition to one you like, and then arguing against
that is the heart of a strawman fallacy. The mistake creationists make is in ignoring the part after "or". Now a good demonstration of why either generic or specific organisms that share traits between taxa is NOT a transitional under the definition
used by science, or a demonstration that these organisms are in fact distinct and unrelated, would be a good approach. That would put paid to the contention, IMO. Simply arguing that an organism isn't transitional because it doesn't fit the creationist idiosyncratic non-scientific definition of "transitional" (most of which appear to refer to chimerae or bizarre mosaics with unusable because un- or underdeveloped features rather than shared traits which "bridge" the taxa), doesn't actually provide a good argument against the scientific terminology. Remember the premise used by scientists when discussing what they term transitional: all organisms must be functional in their environment. A mosaic or chimera that couldn't possibly survive and reproduce can't be a transitional - because it couldn't have lived.
In the context of definitions, think about how Someonewhocares is insisting that the platypus be accepted as an example of what evolution says represents a transitional. Obviously, evolution DOES NOT say this - the platypus isn't an example of what we consider a transitional organism, except in the very loose sense that all organisms living or dead are "transitional" between what came before and what comes after. However, someonewhocares is demanding we accept this "example", and attempts to use it - an example that is flat wrong - to argue against the evolutionary concept of transitional.
So in essence the challenge for creationists who wish to call into question transitional organisms that science claims share features of two distinct taxa, is to demonstrate - starting from the definition used by scientists - that the organism is
in fact unrelated to either one. Demonstrate, not assert. If this can be done consistently, then the entire idea of transitional organisms as used by scientists would have to be revisited.