Replies

Note too that post 200, to which your own is addressed, would be a reasonable rebuttal to the point you attempt to make with a 31-year old quote on the current state of the evidence. It's hard evidence that Kitts was wrong.

Science isn't argued with dueling quotes. Religion apparently is. This would indicate that science isn't a religion after all, despite what creationists try to claim. People who try to dispute science with selective quoting simply do not understand what is going on.

In science, facts trump quotes. Quotes are mostly used for background before plunging into the latest round of findings.

Surely you are not trying to tell me that those ape sculls you have pictured are transitionals? The link on post 200 is even worse. Please! Little has changed in 31 years except the imagination of evolutionist.

Another thing is I wasn't trying to provide a factual argument against evolution in my quote. Science isn't argued with dueling quotes, but it is argued with dueling idea's which should lead to the truth. Pure science looks at the data and seeks the truth. It seems some evolutionist declare the truth and then try and make the data fit. The fact is, and the point I was trying to make in my post, is that there are evolutionist that correctly observe and lament that the fossil record is an embarrassment to their theories. So in referring to your post 200, if you want to call me a liar for questioning the fossil record go ahead, just make sure and point a few fingers at any evolutionists that also question it.