My, my, my, Art. Either you have an inordinate amount of free time or a direct pipeline to the ICR. Apparently both. 25 whole posts, all directed to me. I suppose that I should be impressed.
I really don't know if you fundy creationists think that this is the first time that we've seen all this creation nonsense before. You gleefully (and obstreperously) post quote after quote (some looking suspiciously out-of-context), time worn accusation after banal allegation of illogic, non sequiturs and just plain, flat out solecisms. I have neither the time nor desire to dismember your rather lengthy posts point for point, but will rather demonstrate their overall general absurdity here.
Your protestations notwithstanding, evolution does NOT address the question of the origin of life on this planet; no more than your squalid statistics. Rant, wail and rave all you want, Arthur, but this strawman you've built is of the highest fiber. Your insistence to the opposite matters not one whit the definition of biological evolution. Science is, of course, based upon definition.
It is not only capricious, but malicious, to redefine something to fit your own prejudices, Art. It's also dishonest.
Further, why do you think that biopoesis (I know you just hate that term, hence my fondness for it) is also described as PREevolutionary protobiogenesis? Definition, Art. The basis of science. Also, a quality sorely absent from your posts.
Secondly, your railing about transitionals. Sad, indeed. I could present you with a thousand more documented examples of transitional animals, and these still would not be transitional enough for you. It is truly amazing that you cannot comprehend the fact that taxonomy is a human construct which is applied to a natural biological continuum. By definition, every extinct or extant organism is transitional (except for clones, but we were discussing natural selection). Envision a continuum of color from carmine to electric yellow. Somewhere we draw the ARBITRARY line that separates the "yellow clan" from the "red clan". Is it natural? No. Is it absolute? No. Is it fixed? No. The same applies to the fossil record and the whole of organic life. Really, Art, it's not that tough to comprehend.
Moving forward, your apparent exultation at posting scientists apparently dissenting viewpoints is so obvious. You've aptly demonstrated that we scientists are indeed guilty. Guilty as charged. Guilty of doing science. You see, Art, unlike your rigid and dogmatic approach to apparently everything (you are stumping for God, aren't you? Strange that you didn't address my imputations to that effect in my package of posts to you), science cannot afford that "luxury". Science is fluid, expanding, self-correcting and, dare say I, evolving body of knowledge; subject to critical analysis, review, dissent, re- review, analysis and above all, reinterpretation as more data becomes available. Your quaint and curious mythology would just shrivel to dust under such scrutiny. Perhaps that's why there are so many "mysteries of faith". Keep 'em, science neither requires nor desires them.
Another point that you seem to be incapable of grasping is the fact that macroevolution is defined as simply microevolution over the span of geological time. Why this should be such a difficult concept for you to grasp is beyond cognition.
Oh, and a heartfelt thanks for finally defining the misbegotten term "kind" (I've kept that post of yours, it's a beaut). So, academician Biele, "kind" = "family"? Simply amazing. After all these years, even your best gurus at the ICR could not define the term, and yet right here, in our little forum, you've grabbed the bull by the short and curlies and given it a real "meaning". Meaning, of course, that this will haunt you.
As for your failed attempt to prove creation by disproving evolution, you should realize that that is not the course of neither science nor logic. First, this is not a binary universe. There are always more than two possibilites. Sorry, Art, but that's the way the cosmos crumbles. Secondly, instead of trying to prove a negative (divine creation) by falsifying evolution; why not instead provide positive physical evidence for this creation? It's a fool's errand to be sure, but I think you're just the right individual for that task.
Finally, I do so wish more laymen would have your courage to speak their minds and tell us ignorant old scientists just how science is SUPPOSED to be done; instead of our pursuing logic, rigorous analysis and the scientific method. All we would have to do is consult an ancient book of myth.
Really, now Art. What is your motive behind all this subterfuge? You really don't care a fig about evolution, biopoesis (there's that word again...) or any natural science, now do you? You're just miffed that science has made your God superfluous and removed "the enlightened" from the belly-button of the universe. It's really rather covert (and dishonest) to say otherwise, Art. If you're so intent on proselytizing, why not just come out and do so, instead of building this elaborate, albeit effete, facade?
This is a time consuming, and much like trying to teach an iguana to sing, a futile conversation. I have the backing of the facts and methodology of science and you the dogma of your book. It is obvious that you are impervious to logic, so I can see no further use continuing this conversation. If you ever drop the facade and try legitimate questions instead of couching everything to reflect back on your ancient book of myths, perhaps then we could make some progress. This echo is too busy and you're too windy for me to want to bother. If you keep posting that ICR drek, I'll refute it publically, but as far as I am concerned, this dialogue has just become a monologue.
Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither.