No disrespect/provocation intended my friend.
Then stop doing it.
Once again you misrepresent me – why? Are you that desperate?
The only desperation I see here is your need to co-opt Gee into agreeing with a position that he clearly doesn't - and your insistence against Gee's specific statements to the contrary, that this accords with what you assert Gee is arguing.
In context Gee plainly states that to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. I fully agree with his statement. Before you became confused you stated you also agreed with his statement.
Please show (a) where I agreed with his statement and (b) that Gee is supporting your argument that we (and other organisms) do not have an ancestry in the fossil record, which seems to be the thrust of your argument.
Questions for you: (1) Where is my alleged “lack of honesty” when I agree with his statement?
Because you attempt to co-opt that statement into support for an argument that does not derive from the statement and that Gee has made clear he does not agree with.
(2) Do you agree with his statement?
And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
(3) Are you still confused by your own posts?
Why would you imagine I would be?
As I have explained before – Gee is a dedicated evolutionist who believes via faith the Darwinian notion of goo-to-you evolution and as I have explained to you before if he chooses to include that myth as his creation myth then so be it.
You have explained no such thing, but simply asserted it in the apparent expectation that this is all you have to do to make an irrefutable argument. I have pointed out this collection of unsubstantiated assertions before, but you did nothing to support them then so I don't expect you to do so now; but for the record, please show that Gee 'believes via faith the Darwinian notion of goo-to-you evolution', that this characterisation of Darwin's theory and it's modern synthesis has any value and that the modern evolutionary synthesis amounts to 'myth'.
His religious beliefs do not negate the truth he presented in Deep Time that it is folly to take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage.
Another unsupported assertion, that his understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory amount to 'religious beliefs'.
Are we on the same page, mate?
Not as long as you continue to misrepresent Gee's intent and argument in the relevant quote mine,
mate. Or have you failed to ay any attention at all to Gee's comments that I have directed you towards.
It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Gee's frustration.
So you prefer your misrepresentation of the intent of Gee's argument to Gee's statement as to what purpose it was directed and how creationist websites have misrepresented it.
Gee correctly presented these facts: (1) No fossil is buried with its birth certificate.
No one suggests that it is.
(2) The fossil record used to support the many myths of Darwinism is extremely scarce.
Unsubstantiated assertions: that the fossil record is 'extremely scarce' and that evolutionary theory amounts to 'many myths'. Furthermore, if you are now trying to suggest that your provided quote mine amounts to Gee presenting these unsubstantiated assertions as 'facts', then you are not only quote mining him at second-hand, but actively and intentionally misrepresenting his views.
(3) Everything pontificated by Darwinists regarding the causal relationship of events in Deep Time has been invented by Darwinists (circularity at its best).
Unsurprisingly, more unsubstantiated assertions that fly in the face of what Gee himself has written. Gee has unequivocally stated that the fossil record is evidence for evolution and that organisms have an ancestry and ancestors, as demonstrated by this fossil record.
(4) To take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is a Darwinian fairytale.
Again you misrepresent what Gee says, unless you can point to any point in your quote mine where he uses the phrase 'Darwinian fairytale'.
Gee is now embarrassed because those who reject Darwinian myth have used his facts to refute the pseudoscience presented by Darwinism.
Unsupported assertion, that Gee is anything other than angered by being quotemined by creationists.
He has taken a lot of criticism from his fellow travelers for telling the truth...
And yet another unsubstantiated assertion, that Gee 'has taken a lot of criticism' from evolutionary scientists, leaving aside your efforts to demean the profession by characterizing its members as 'fellow teavellers'.
Darwinism cannot stand on its own feet when reviewed in the light of scientific fact - it must rely of sleight of hand, magic and mythology. Hope that helps you understand your quagmire a little better.
Unsupported opinion based on apparent ignorance of what constitutes the modern evolutionary synthesis only helps me understand the lack of substance and intellectual rigour that underpin your own arguments.
You do agree with me and Gee - "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis"?
I've told you what I agree with already. Were you not paying attention, or did you simply not understand?
Again, I have answered this question already. Were you not paying attention, or did you simply not understand my answer? On the other hand, I have asked you whether or not you are a creationist, but answer has there come none. Why is that?
As noted previously -
Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time*
"...no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. ...To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." ~ Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time
*And as noted previously this is a quote mine, which, as Gee has pointed out, is misused to support a point of view that his comments do not support at all. And as asked twice previously, and as you have twice failed to answer, can you tell us what lies in those ellipses, from what source you derived this quote and what Gee actually argues that the fossil record shows? Can you also support your various assertions, that 'Darwinism' amounts to 'many myths' and that Gee 'believes' in them 'via faith.' And can you detail the alleged 'Darwinian "horse sequence" hoax' and explain what it proposes, why it is a hoax and where it identifies a specific fossil claimed as directly ancestral to either another specific fossil or a particular living individual?
