From the very first link in Michael_Michaelangelo pack-o'-creationist-claptrap "Articles of Notable Interest" ("notable" only in their unceasing spew of disinformation and dishonest propaganda):
"That there is a controversy over how macroevolution could have occurred is largely due to the increasing awareness in scientific circles that the fossil evidence is very difficult to reconcile with the Darwinist scenario."Horse manure. See post #52 for many examples. The fossil evidence *beautifully* fits "the Darwinist scenario". It's the creationists who have a hell of a hard time reconciling it with *their* scenarios. So they just lie about it. And often they lie about it by misquoting respectable biologists or paleontologists and trying to stuff the creationist lies into *their* mouths. See:
-- creationist Phillip Johnson (whose expertise in evolutionary biology field is as... a lawyer!)
The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote MinesYou'll find many examples of these dishonestly misused quotes in Johnson's essays at Michael_Michaelangelo's link, as well as in the links to essays by other creationists.Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution (scroll to the bottom of this one as well, it has links to *dozens* of other sites dedicated to exposing the countless creationist dishonest "quotes" of scientists)
Johnson dishonestly continues:
New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.Again, this is complete and utter bollocks. Johnson can't even begin to attempt to reconcile the fossil record to any *creationist* scenario, so instead he just outright LIES and falsely claims that it doesn't show any "numerous intermediate forms" which match evolutionary scenarios.
Again, this is just a badlfaced lie, and again, one can look at post #52 for *several* examples of the "numerous intermediate forms" of fossils which Johnson shamelessly claims "have not been preserved" (i.e. do not exist).
Remember, folks, *this* is the sort of "tell you complete and transparent lies to your face" stuff that the creationists rely on as their stock-in-trade. *This* is what Michael_Michaelangelo presents to his fellow Freepers as "Articles of Notable Interest".
This is the moral bankruptcy and intellectual emptiness of the creationist movement.
Hey, genius, let's let the lurkers read the information in the links and decide for themselves, shall we? Or would you like to tell everyone here how to think? (Don't answer that - I think we know the answer)