randman

LOL.
Well, let's go over one at a time. Let's start with the fossil record.
Steven Stanley, not a creationist, and David Kitts made the following comments on the fossil record. Let's deal with this, and then move on. If these are not sufficiently clear, others can be added which state the same thing from other evolutionists themselves, but let's start with these.

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

OK, is it true that the fossil record is just as campatible with creationist theories as with evolutionary models?