[Dataman]

I will ask you in a civil tone. Check the link in post #133 and explain why you posted a misleading, out of context quotation that does not support your position at all?

From your link:

I personally have a low opinion of Dr. Patterson's objection. A claim about history most certainly can be scientific. There are fossil series where a "watertight argument" can be made.

It wasn't misleading, it was a quote and yes, it was from Sunderland's book. The original challenge was this:

Can you provide even one example of a "professional evolutionist" (which we can take to mean an evolutionist who has published original research regarding evolution in the professional scientific literature) who hs said this in, say, the last hundred years?

I met the challenge and produced the example. But "NO!" shout the evolutionists, "That's not what he really meant."

Well then, how about if I provide 2 examples? How about 3? Four? Will it make any difference? I doubt it because no matter how many quotes I produce, evos will either say it was out of context or not what the author meant. Let's see if I'm right. Here's another quote (taken from a book so Aric, that means there won't be a link):

Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of teh fossil record has been its obvious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of "missing links." The fossil record is replete with evidence favoring organic evolution provided by short sequences of species with overlapping morphologies arranged in a clinal manner with time; the same is true for many sequences of genera and even for a fairish number of families. However, once above the family level it becomes very difficult in most instances to find any solid paleontological evidence for morphological intergrades between one suprafamilial taxon and another. This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory. In other words, the inability of the fossil record to produce the "missing links" has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.
--Arthur J. Boucot, Ph.D., Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls

[Lurking Libertarian]

I met the challenge and produced the example. But "NO!" shout the evolutionists, "That's not what he really meant."

The challenge was to find one professional evolutionist who said there are "no transitional forms" (your words). Boucot says the fossil record is "replete with" transitional forms at the species, genus and family levels, just not at the "suprafamilial" level. How does that support your position?

[Stultis]

Here's another quote (taken from a book so Aric, that means there won't be a link):

[ALARM Bells Ringing!!!]

Yes, Dataman, but what book did YOU take it from? Are you saying that you have "Arthur J. Boucot, Ph.D., Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls" siting open in front of your keyboard, or are you taking this from some other book that quotes Boucot?

You are obligated to provide YOUR source. E.g. "Arthur J. Boucot (etc) as quoted in Henry H. Morris (etc) page (so and so)."

[js1138]

I met the challenge and produced the example. But "NO!" shout the evolutionists, "That's not what he really meant."

Yes, because it isn't what he meant. Not at all.

[js1138]

Is this your source?

[js1138]

This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory. In other words, the inability of the fossil record to produce the "missing links" has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.

I was, once upon a time, an English major (never tell it from my typing) and I can absolutely tell from the sentence construction of this quote that it is leading up to a "But..." that refutes the assertion just made. In other words, your sources are lying by falsely arguing from quotes out of context. If you are a person of faith, you know that lying from your heart is just as much a sin as lying directly with false words. I hope, for your sake, that you will consider this.

If I am wrong about this, and you can provide context to prove that your quote supports an anti-evolutionary position, or a position that denies the existence of transitional species, then I will most humbly apologise.

The reason I am so certain that this quote is falsely presented out of context is that I have searched through numerous references to the book, read other quotations from the book, and found absolutely nothing that would support a reading that the author doubts any part of evolution or doubts the existence of transitional species.