thankyou for providing a full quote , but as it appears to have come after [I am open to correction on this] his admission of lack of transitional fossils, the latter complaint looks like damage control imo.
I am aware of his evolution by jerks theory, and that this is the context he was speaking in. I fail to see however why that diminishes the force of the argument. it seems that he and eldridge developed their theory because of the failure of gradualism to vindicate [ I believe ] darwins expectations of future discovery of gradualistic fossils.
I am aware that there have been fossils that have been offered as transitional but I don't know which are still current ,as opposed to those in the evolution bin.
and I am a little confused as to whether you's are advocating that there is continuous evident gradual transition, or that there are large gaps , but with a few periods of closer transition.
lets be clear,...I am not claiming to have read these evolution books [though I have read some of the articles linked here] so though I might be "quote mining" I am not lying/ bearing false witness.
I am curious though, as to whether when you quote creationists ,if you have read their books either , or just garnered your quotes from Naig or suchlike atheist/evolutionism sites.
rob,...I agree that the granite melting is a problem for creationists, as appeal to the supernatural is all that can currently be offered. but bear in mind that the RATE report did admit problems as well as the evidences of diverse dates from different methods.
also, I had no problem finding a review of RATE by oard on cmi that included the problems.
and if evolutionists can have research problems, why cant creationists?
other than blind prejudice that is!.