"i dont think darwin used that angle did he."

Huh? So what if he did or didn't? Science moves on.

"i do know he was hoping transitional forms would be found but there is not much to show for it still."

There's plenty to show for it. I actually don't think you understand what a 'transitional form' is. We have phylogenies that are built from species that are all transitional forms. Get down to the Natural History Museum and ask to see their transitional forms. Look up tetrapod evolution. Look up bird evolution.

"i presume there were fossils found in his day but all the yrs and tons dug up since have not realized his expectations.just a lot more of much the same i suspect."

Pete mate, this is a statement so infused with deep ignorance it shows you have some neck coming here to taunt and take the piss out of us. This is pretty insulting to many, many people I know and I take exception to it. Suspect? You're not even close.


"this is experimental science and hopefully you are not suggesting ,as some seem to have implied, that creationists are rejecting suh"

I'm suggesting it. Evolution and the processes that make it happen are also studied using the same criteria as the science that goes to make your computer; testable, repeatable, observable data. In truth, adherence to the Usher or biblical model of creation means you reject the following sciences:

Palaeontology
Geology
Sedimentology
Oceanography
Statistics
Anthropology
Chemistry
Physics
Astronomy
Cosmology
Molecular Biology
Biology
Zoology
Climatology
Micro Biology
Mineralogy
Vulcanology
Archaeology
Genetics
Neuroscience
Anatomy
Functional Morphology
Linguistics
Pharmacology
Mathematics

. . . and the many sub-disciplines of the above. So in fact, a denial of evolution and embracing of creationism is a denial of all the subjects that go into studying it, as you believe they are all wrong in their assessment of the evidence they find, which points to an old earth, an older universe and the big bang. These individual areas of research don't exist in isolation, but are in fact part of the massive, complex interconnected web we call science. they inform each other, and progress in one area means progress for all as the results of one discovery can have profound (and small) effects on another area of study.

All the people that have studied, and have ever studied all these sciences over the millennia have, according to you, been barking up the wrong tree.

Wow. What does it feel like to have rejected, without any robust evidence, the work of so many?

How do you reconcile this viewpoint with the fact you actually benefit from many of the scientific discoveries made by these people?