Claiming it as a fact doesnt make it a fact. No matter how many letters you can string after your name.
So what's your explanation then? God created things in countless "waves" a few million years apart over a billion or so years? After letting dinosaurs run around for a long time, he decided to wave his hands and throw birds into the mix out of nowhwere? Funny, Genesis doesn't describe anything like that.
You'll also have to explain why He chose to "specially create" birds at a time when there were already reptiles which had an awful lot of birdlike traits on the scene (which were themselves preceded by reptiles with fewer birdlike traits, which were themselves... etc. etc.)
I'm not a YEC.
Good.
I agree that descent with change is a fact.
Then you're 98% of the way there.
But. Gradualism, which makes use of the millions of years of life, is refuted by the fossil record.
You are mistaken. There are countless examples of clasic "gradualism" in the fossil record. But just to make sure, please define "gradualism" as you mean it. Something taking place in "only" a few million years is practically instantaneously with respect to most parts of the geological record, yet it would still be immensely "gradual" by any human standard of speed.
Punctuated equilibrium doesn't describe a process, it seems more a "kluge" than anything else.
Then you don't understand it well. P.E. most certainly does "describe a process", and it's the same process as the rest of evolution. It's just a recognition of what should have been an obvious fact but that no one gave much thought to until Gould et al made an issue of it: Evolution does not proceed at the same speed at all times. Few natural processes do.
Just as erosion can take place at quite different speeds (very slowly if accomplished by wind, much faster if running water is present, extremely fast when flash-floods occur, etc.), evolution likewise can slow almost to a standstill when conditions are right (e.g., large populations that are already well suited to their environment and no heavy competition is present), or proceed very fast indeed (relatively speaking) when other conditions are present (e.g. small populations, heavy selective pressure/competition, a "breakthrough" mutation, etc.)
That's all the P.E. is -- the recognition that the forces which drive evolution change in "strength" based on current conditions, and thus the speed of change will necessarily vary and not always proceed at the same speed either.
This has been verified time and time again both mathematically, and experimentally. A good example of the latter is contained in the February 2003 issue of Scientific American. While harnessing evolution to meet requirements in electronic circuits, the authors found that they got results considerably faster when the evolving "populations" of circuits were often split off into smaller isolated subpopulations -- just as is predicted by punctuated equilibrium.
Like, gee, these fossils stay the same, then wham, some are gone, others, radically different appear. Okay, fossil creation is the exception, not the rule.
Only if you misstate the actual fossil record by calling the observed changes "radically different". Sure, if for example a modern bird appeared out of nowhere, then yeah, you'd have a case for "fossil creation". But that's not what happens. Feel free to present an example of what you believe is the sudden appearance of something "radically different", if you think you can. And make sure your example is from a period where we actually have a decent number of fossil finds -- no fair pointing to "jumps" which are caused by the extreme rarity of fossil finds of any sort.
Still, saying that somehow evolution happens in bursts and then goes into stasis doesn't really account for how that much change occurs that quickly, it merely amends the theory of gradualism to fit the facts, after the fact.
Yeah, heaven forbid science should refine its knowledge... *cough*
As for "doesn't really account for how that much change occurs that quickly", actually, it does. Analyses of population dynamics show quite easily that some of the more "rapid" (again, that term is only relative, it's still a slow process by human standards) species changes are well within what's to be expected given the conditions that were likely present.
but, scientifically, I weary of naturalists and atheists overstating the weak science. There's not enough "there" yet.
As is the case for a lot of skeptics, your assertions about the "lack of evidence" appears to be more an artifact of your own lack of familiarity with the field than with any actual absence of evidence.