When it has been shown that you manufactured a false and deceptive quote, you respond that the falsehood was part of your understanding. What God do you worship that requires falsehood?
I haven't read Darwin, but Philip Johnson has, and that's how he described Darwin's position. So did the evolutionist I quoted. I generally distrust the judgment of evolutionists because they're atheists. But I trust Philip Johnson.
There's a difference between the fossil record "not containing every transitional form that ever lived" and a fossil record that uniformly exhibits stasis within species. Since fossils are by definition, how are they supposed to be anything but static?
The problem is that as a rule many (hundreds?) fossils are discovered of the same species in various geologic features, indicating that the species remained in the same morphological state for the duration of its existence.
You demand transitionals between ancient ape fossils and modern humans, and transitionals are found.
Where are they? How do you know that they're transitional forms and not simply different creatures, especially if they retain the same morphology over time?
Gould says that the history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:The chart included here is very instructive.1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’7
You demand transitionals between land animals and whales, and transitionals are found. You demand transitionals between reptilians and birds, and feathered dinosaurs are found. All of these are consistent with the predictions of Darwin.
Almost. Again, the problem is that the fossil record shows that these creatures remain the same over time, as I explained above.
In denying the validity of biological science...
I'm simply saying that evolution is bad science, or poor speculation.
I strongly suggest that you vote for George Bush this fall. In my judgement he's better qualifie than either Kerry or Nader.
What a d@mning rejection of critical thought! It's only a book - read it yourself before you lose any more credibility.