[My2Cents]

You haven't refuted the assertion that Gould's theory is a convenient device to explain-away the lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms. Gould doesn't know for sure; it's a way to prop up a sorry and tattered theory of origins.

[jlogajan]

Scientific theories can be wrong for decades. The Bible is wrong forever.

[onedoug]

This is largely an issue involving "cross-cutting relationships." As in geology. Not in people.

[Honcho Bongs]

"You haven't refuted the assertion that Gould's theory is a convenient device to explain-away the lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms. Gould doesn't know for sure; it's a way to prop up a sorry and tattered theory of origins."

The lack of a complete, end-to-end fossil record doesn't disprove Gould's theories. Fossil creation is rare enough. To expect transitional stages to be found for a particular species highlights a lack of comprehension of the scale of the times involved

Rather than search for things that refute that which you don't believe, shouldn't you find proof for the things you do believe?

[AmericaUnited]

Having to defend a lie, i.e. evolution, makes the evolutionists twist and contort worse than a pretzel. It is just so funny to watch. For every MONSTER SIZE hole/contradiction that pops up, they have to make up the most improbable and sometimes utterly bizarre hypothesies.

[gore3000]

You haven't refuted the assertion that Gould's theory is a convenient device to explain-away the lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms. Gould doesn't know for sure; it's a way to prop up a sorry and tattered theory of origins.

You are very much correct. Neither the Darwinians nor the Punks have any evidence to support their theory, while there is abundant evidence against both of them.