To Scotsman -
I never said you did - just perhaps were ignoring some of it or perhaps unaware of the scientists who have a different view on the fossil record. There is indeed 2 sides to this story.
I don't ignore evidence, biology was my minor in college. There are two sides to the story, I have a feeling (and from talking to many people about this subject) that when you see a scientist disagreeing with evolution they are actually disagreeing with current teachings about HOW evolution took place not that it NEVER took place. For example many that talk about "Darwin's theory in trouble" quote scientists who are actually critisizing Darwin's theory that evolution was a gradual process in every case taking millions of years. From the evidence evolution can take place in both long periods and short bursts. This doesn't mean that Darwin's theory is in trouble, the basis of common ancestry is most certainly not in trouble, here's a video to illustrate what I'm talking about...
For listing evolutionary dead ends you said...
No point - you will merely read from a book / quote a scientific paper that suggests an evolutionery process of sorts which is yet to be proven.
Or I will show you the ones that you feel are evolutionary dead ends are in fact not evolutionary dead ends at all. Can you show a trait in the animal kingdom that just spontaneously came about, or was there a very similar species that then mutated a specific trait that aided in their survival.
I usually start with your kind asking if you can explain the extra telomeres in chromosome 2 of the human genome which shows the merger of two primate chromosomes with creation in mind? Why would God use the markers for the end of chromosomes telomeres to have extra in this one chromosome in humanity to make it SEEM that they were two merged primate chromosomes if indeed he had created them from scratch. Especially since these telomeres are benign?
The first book has been covered by cofty so I guess I'll take the second
"THe Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris
Refutation Joel Cracraft, "Systematics, Comparative Biology and the Case Against Creationism," in Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creationism
Your second book's ("In 6 Days Why 50 Scientist choose to believe in Creation" By John Ashton) main argument is irreducable complexity which was thoroughly dismantled in Kitzmiller v Dover (this is the bacterial flagellum theory). Here take a look:
I guess I pass this off to Cofty for the next couple of books
Thats fine if you want to criticize my sources, at least that's keeping you honest. I have no problem with your criticizing them.
You said they didnt exist. They have to exist if your going to criticize them.
Everybody has the same facts we are all free to interpret them according to our agendas.
There are sources that talk about all sorts of crazy theories, hell people believe the tabloids with Bat Boy ect. Does that mean because they exist they are valid? To borrow a common thread between us, the Watchtower SAYS they teach truth, does that mean they do? Where is there evidence? Are the people who are refuting their arguments valid or simply because the Watchtower says they're right and the refutations are wrong we should ignore the refutation's evidence?