It might just be a natural reaction to the fact that you have misrepresented quotes in the past and you never provide adequate references, insisting that we track down the source of your quotes if we want context. Also, your quote is at best marginally in tune with your position, as Patterson is not stating that there are no transitional fossils. As his view seems to be that transitionals cannot be identified, it's impossible for him to say that none have been found.
Ah, baloney. You seem to be bitter because I wouldn't do your homework for you. I provided the quotes you requested, not one, but four. You found feeble excuses to reject all of them like it somehow proved that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. That is a recent mantra and it exists solely for the purpose of not having to answer another one of the unexplained problems with the theory. You even pick apart your own when they say things you don't quite like.
Stultis, OTOH, has been polite and, although he doesn't agree with the creationist position, hasn't devolved into the rabid foaming flailing which we have come to expect. Some of you pretend you're calm rational scientists and then proceed to whirl like a dervish at the drop of a hat.