Yes, I do wish to discuss them. But, I'm just amazed that all of your quotes, which you claim to have found off line in various books, can all be found at the following url: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm Good thing that this isn't a court, cause you would be in contempt.
If, if, if. I bet you will engage in a flame war if prompted, gentleman's bet of course...but wait, you are not a gentleman, are you? LOL.
I have never been to that site and took those quotes from the book i mentioned....go to ur local book store pick up the book turn to page 58 and then come back and apologize like man...if indeed u are a man....peace
After this most recent encounter with Kent, ZZzz, you remind me of the Black Knight in a Monty Python film - just an armless legless torso and a big mouth is all that's left of you. ROFL!! Well done Kent! We evolutionists applaud you!
OK, you're right, I'm wrong. I apologize. Now, regarding your various quotes and their authors: Michael Denton: My research of Mr. Denton shows that he is a respected biologist. He is an advocate of intelligent design, however he does not accept Biblical creationism. His last published essay was in 2002 in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. He makes a case that evolution operates as the result of natural law, rather than chance processes, i.e., that is, that evolution is guided by a creator who set evolution into motion. He does not, however, deny that evolution has occurred, he only contests the why of its occurrence. Pierre Lecomte du Nouy: The quote of Mr. du Nouy, was made in 1947, the year of his death. It is an opinion based on the data available at the time. It is no longer the prevailing view of paleontologists. Alan Feduccia: Professor Feduccia is one of the foremost authorities on aves (birds). However, he has not published anything in the past 5 years, and he is in a small minority of scientists who believe that birds did not evolve from reptilian ancestors. Also, Feduccia, accepts that biological evolution is the means by which life has developed on Earth. His primary argument is that Archaeopteryx was not a aves ancestor. This opinion is not shared by the majority of the scientific community, primarily because they believe that Feduccia is not well versed in paleontology and/or dinosaurs generally, and that his book challenging reptilian ancestry of birds does not refer to the most recent findings re archaeopteryx that demonstrate its link as a transitional form between reptiles and aves. See http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/fudd.htm
No credible modern scientist accepts Darwin's work at face value, any more than they accept Newton's or Einstein's. Scientific discovery is an ongoing event, while creationism is fixed in advance, because it is based on a predetermined solution.
Scientists accept Darwin's work at face value, they just don't accept his theory. Quite a difference. They don't question his observations, only his conclusions and theories. However, it is extremely likely that the origin of man is in fact predetermined, as it is a matter of history. Scientists doesn't know the origin, they just keep guessing. At each stage it is a guess, until they have all the facts. Is science complete yet, have they gathered all the facts? Didn't think so. So teach best "current" guess and teach ID both.
You have not one shred of evidence to suggest that it is even remotely likely that the origin of man is predetermined. You are simply stating a baseless opinion without any supporting evidence. So, by all means, let's teach alchemy, witchcraft, astrology, numerology, etc., and let's do it all in biology class, shall we? After all, we must not discriminate against any possible theory of universal design.