[GarySpFc]

Even if they didn't have any of your quotes, what you're doing is the activity they're exposing. That, and several people on this thread have found problems with several of your other quotes.

So you say, but I have not seen one yet which contradicts anything I posted. It is surprising to see such hostility.

[VadeRetro]

So you say, but I have not seen one yet which contradicts anything I posted.

So much of creation science is about not seeing what is there.

You quoted this.

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.

Patterson said this about that:

The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

Further explained here. And you see nothing. That "you can't make me see" science is really something.