[connectthedots]

I find it interesting that only one evolutionist bothered to reply to your most detailed post; and it wasn't very coherent.

Seems to me that if you were wrong in your citations of Darwin, Gould, and others; they would have pointed it out.

[RunningWolf]

100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. .. should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. .. The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record.

Powerful material quoted Nathan Zachary, thank you for bringing it here.

Wolf

[b_sharp]

"I find it interesting that only one evolutionist bothered to reply to your most detailed post; and it wasn't very coherent. "

NZ was trying to use quote-mining to show that Darwin, Gould and Patterson, as well as others, were contemplating the rejection of the ToE. I showed that he based his interpretation of the quotes on incorrect assumptions.

You will also note that no creationists responded to my 'less than coherent' post.

[Dimensio]

I find it interesting that only one evolutionist bothered to reply to your most detailed post; and it wasn't very coherent

Perhaps it's because we're weary of debunking the same dishonestly pulled-out-of-context quotes.

Seems to me that if you were wrong in your citations of Darwin,

You mean that dishonest out of context quote to make it seem like Darwin was doubting the possibility of the evolution of the eye, when really he wasn't?

Connectthedots, you've been on these discussion long enough; you should know that quote is taken out of context and that any attempt to present it as an argument against evolution is founded in dishonesty or ignorance. Why are you still acting as cheerleader to someone who has done nothing but present a false definition of evolution supported with out-of-context quotes and who insults anyone who explains that his understanding of evolution is incorrect?