Re: TOBS: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

"jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> budikka attach himself on the T.O. faqs like creationist attach themselves
> to the 6 day quikie...

Jabriol's ignorance shows through.  If evolution is a fact, as indeed
it is, having been demonstrated in the lab, observed in the wild, and
supported by every avenue of science that has been explored relevant
to it, then it ought to be hard to precisely classify organisms in the
fossil record, because they were transitioning frequently, as the
record demonstrates.

It should only be easy to rigidly classify all fossils if the organims
they came from were created as distinct "kinds".  The fact that there
are no such rigid, permanent distinctions in the fossil record refutes
creation and supports evolution.

Regardless of what the original organisms in the series were or should
be classed as, the transition to mammals is particularly well
documented, revealing a series of intermediate forms that you, jabriol
pretend do not - cannot - exist.  So why don't you deal with the facts
instead of obsessing with the FAQs (and Hunt's FAQ is supported by
over 70 references, many of which are to peer-reviewed papers
published in professional science journals).  Why don't you answer the
challenge instead of flapping your arms like a headless chicken in the
desperate hope that it will all go away?

Here is the challenge:
1. Do you deny that there are transitionals leading to mammals from a
group that was not mammals?

2.  If so, what is your evidence refuting it?

3.  If not, what happens to your claim that there are no
transitionals?  Even one transitional refutes creationism.

And, BTW, I am still waiting for you to actually **LIST** these
"colossal holes" you claim exist.  I have been waiting for weeks.  You
do know what a list is, don't you?  I am not asking you to support it,
to provide evidence or references, or even to number it.  Just a
simple list of the holes.  When you have demonstrated you can list
them, **THEN** we can discuss them.

Note that argument from incredulity does *not* constitute a "colossal
hole" in anything except your education.

Note that creationist letters publihsed in "New Scientist" magazine
are not the equivalent of peer-reviewed science papers published in
refereed professional science journals, and do not constitute
"colossal holes".

Note that highlighting the differences between modern reptiles and
modern birds is not an argument against evolution, let alone a
"colossal hole".

Budikka