Because there is a problem with the other suff. It is only a sequence of fossils and then an interpretation is made they are related.
whereas with living creatures an actual fossil record showing one major kind evolving into another is nessessary to make thier case
Please explain this again. If I am following the logic correctly you are saying that a long series of smooth transitionals (as exists for many if not most vertebrate groups and the shelled inverts) doesn't qualify as evidence because they are only interpreted as being related? By this then nothing can ever be known about the past if inference can never be used.
The overwhelming point remains that transitional fossils of major kinds of creatures do not exist. If evolution was true they would exist in great numbers of many kinds. Because of the time evolutionists say has past. All that time but no transitions to shout about.
No transitionals except between all major classes and orders of mollusks, corals, brachipods, echinoderms as well as between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and dinosaurs, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, mesonychids and whales, old world monkeys and apes, horses and stem perisodactyls, and even humans and apes. I guess none of those count because the earliest bat found had modern type wings (this is Gish's the oldest known bat is fully formed so therefore no transitionals in any group can be valid).
Also evolutionists themselves have admitted embarrassment at the poverty of transitions
Only in paraphrased, out of context, 150 years old, fraudulent (sometimes all of the above) quotes ripped from the same old YEC sources. These quotes have all be dealt with and shown to be wrong. And as for embarrasment, I am awed by the vast number of transitionals we have for many invert taxa. Enough so that, if I believed in God, I would thank him repeatedly for providing such a clear lineage to his humble biological servant.
And this has forced,I repeat forced, the idea of Puncuated Equiblibrium
Oh boy! This again. Rob, please tell me what you think the theory of punctuated equilibrium is. I am going to go out on a limb and trust you are taking the Morris/Gish/Hovind definition that bears not one bit resemblance to the actual theory. The YEC definition is actually comical as it shows that these people are a)incapable of reading and understanding a scientific paper b)trust that their followers are incapable of reading and understanding a scientific paper so they are free to deliberately lie. As I understand it this is the logic: Eldredge and Gould wrote a paper about PE, Gould wrote a paper about Goldschmidt called "the return of the hopeful monster", therefore PE is the same theory as Goldschmidt's (that a reptile one day hatched out a modern bird). But please please don't trouble yourself to read any of these papers, let Hovind tell you what they are about because he is an honest chap. I am including the ref to the original paper and a link to Hovind's distorted defintion (I am hoping you will carefully compare the two before speaking with authority about how evolutionists "forced" the idea).
Eldredge N and Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative
to phyletic gradualism. In: Models in Paleobiology, edited by T.J.M. Schopf. FreemanCooper, San Francisco, CA, pp.82-115.
http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationE...