[Coyoteman]

But here is my basic thought, in all its naive glory. The splendour of nature and the heavens used to serve as an overwhelming persuasion to the idea of the holy. Now it is converted to the uses of scientism. How, without interfering with real science, do we take it back?

You don't. You're arguing apples and oranges. Move on.

[snarks_when_bored]

It wouldn't necessarily bother the "Darwinists", theoretically, if the whole evolutionary sequence were turned upside down: for the "theory" doesn't predict anything. It only explains things after the fact.

Comforting thought for Warren, I suppose, but incorrect. Every version of evolution of which I'm aware predicts that no fossil bones of a modern human will ever be discovered by digging into rock or sediment layers that are previously untouched by human activity and are older than, say, 50 million years. Should such a thing happen (and should it be shown that no hoax was involved), all current versions of evolution would immediately be falsified. And that's just one of many reasons why evolution (in any of its flavors) is a scientific theory and not an ideological (i.e., refutation-proof) belief system.

[Right Wing Professor]

(From a news article about the find)Neither creature looks like any mammal alive today. Indeed, the term "Repenomamus" ("reptile mammal") was coined to express the odd aspects of these creatures, which had large, sharp and pointy teeth and reptile-like limbs that stuck out from their bodies at an angle. However, they were far more limber than any reptile, thanks to more flexible joints.

Gosh, an early mammal with some reptiltian features, wouldn't that be one of those transitional forms that creationists insist don't exist?