Reasoned and sound arguments.
You didn't provide any yourself, son, so I wasn't going waste my time doing anything more than just highlighting how often you were spewing nonsense.
I've obviously read more Gould and Dawkins than you.
You obviously haven't a clue.
You need a refresher course it seems.
Not at all. You need an education.
[There is no "disagreement". "PE" is just "gradualism" running at varying rates depending upon conditions. But it's all "gradual" from the perspective of a human lifetime.]
Than why did he rail against Gould about it.
For reasons that are beyond you, obviously. But if you think that he said anything that contradicts the points I've made, you're sadly mistaken. Nor, I note, did you even bother to try to demonstrate that he had. All you have is your dishonest implications and empty bluster.
Can someone find me anyone on the creationist/ID side who is actually a worthy debate partner? Please?
I mean, how about someone who doesn't stick his foot in his mouth by claiming that *I* haven't read enough Gould & Dawkins, when if *he* had actually done so, he'd know that Dawins "railed against" Gould primarily over a misunderstanding, and not over a real difference in conclusions?
You need to shake those cobwebs out of your brain and try to keep up.
Yeah. Sure. I guess that's why I keep posting valid arguments and evidence, and you keep just bluffing.
Thank you, sincerely, for showing just how empty the creationist/ID "argument" is, by way of example.
sorry, Magister - I think those beasties were either mythical or are extinct.
No such person exists.