jack-i,m sorry to say that your last post was very wordy but without actually answering much of my last post IMO.
i am impressed that you can reel off so many scientific disciplines.i could,nt-even less know enough about them to assert that they all attest to any theories verity.
you did have a stab at my point that transistional fossils are missing and added a bit more browbeating for good measure,,not to mention argument from authority.i shall actually quote an authority-infact-one of your own

"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches..."s j gould

i,m sure he wished he never admitted that and he probably got it in the neck from the darwin believers but thankyou stephen wherever you are.

you accuse me of disrepecting scientists but consider will you that you are doing the same.there are many creationist scientists now and many in the past-under whose biblical worldview science flourished.
i note too that it was a evolutionary paradigm that predicted that no purpose would be found for so called junk dna and vestigual organs.

the fact that most scientists [say they ]believe darwinism is not a valid argument.ask galileo!