Replies

As to Gould, the quote in post#99 which says:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and

Is correct, both factually and as an expression of Gould's opinion on the matter. You know quite well that he created his punctuated equilibrium due to the statement above. His partial denial in your quote just shows him to be a whore of evolution as I have already stated in several posts which you continue to ignore, and misrepresent

Science, as we think of it has only been around for some 500 years.

Are you so daft that you have missed the entire debate surrounding Post #99? Medved's quote mining was specifically refuted, including that post. I addresse the age and veracity of the quotes. Vade posted Gould's reply to the quote-miners, which refuted your interpretation. You then JUMPED TO MEDVED'S DEFENSE!!!!

Is any of this ringing a bell?

Now, like one born yesterday (and just as bright) you ignore all that went before and claim the Gould quote as your support. Amazing.

G3k, you are so incomprehensible a defender of creationism, that I accuse you of being en evolutionist, in disguise, in your study, with the lead pipe. Further, I accuse of smoking the lead pipe.

Here you simply repeat medved's original quote of Gould. Brazen. What's wrong with this?

1) Medved posted that quote.
2) Various people called him on the known dishonesty of creationist quote salads, especially quotes of Gould who once had to spend a lot of time defending his Punk-Eek against "Neo-Darwinists."
3) I linked and excerpted Gould's long article in which he lays out in detail what he believes about transitional fossils (citing several examples, including reptiles-to-mammals and the hominid series) and repudiates such insidiously abusive quote-mining as you and medved do.
4) You told me that I in my quoting misrepresented Gould's article.
5) Challenged on that, you repeated Step 1.

Note that you might have accused Gould of repenting and recanting in one lying article just to hit back at the creationists riding on his coattails, but you were too dumb to parse your own statements. You accused me of misrepresenting Gould, when his article totally repudiates your position and your attempts to hijack his life's work. (Punk-Eek is not creationism.)