The phrase "fundamentalist garbage" did not sound very tolerant to me.  It seems that rather than debate the issue on its merits, you have chosen to make me the issue.  I am not the one disputing the fossil record.  I believe in my previous post I cited Paleontolgist David Kitts.  Are you saying that you know more than a trained scientist?

Furthermore, evolutionist Edred J. H. Corner said, in Evolution in Contemporary Thought, (1961) "...I still think that to the unpredjudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."  His conclusion was that scientists have been unable to find an evolutionary history from beginning to end for even one group of modern plants.

Try this quote from evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Columnist George Caylor interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled “The Biologist” which appeared in the February 17, 2000 issue of the Lynchburg (VA) Ledger.  Discussing the complexity of the human genetic code, Mr. Caylor asked the scientist if he believes that the information evolved.   The scientist answered,

“…[N]obody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise…I just [have to] say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.”

That's not me saying that, Kevin, nor am I quoting Scripture.  This is direct from some of those "great minds" you hold in such high esteem.  Seems to me like the same thing is happening with the scientists who challenge the orthodoxy of the proponents of global warming...I mean, global cooling...I mean, global climate change (is that what they're still calling it this week?  I've lost track...)  If they say that the science doesn't support the politically correct answer, they stand to lose their research funding.  Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator.  As I said, it's the politics of science at work.

As for me, I would never purport to know more about a subject than those who have studied it carefully.  Far be it from me to dispute those who worship at the altar of Evolution Theory.

"Fundamentalism" to the secular world has come to be used as a catch-all term, a perjorative used to describe all sorts of extremist views, and has become so watered-down as to be meaningless to describe the beliefs of the average Christian.  I would describe myself as a Pentecostal Evangelist Christian.  As for Jehovah's Witnesses, I too, have debated them on occasion and found their doctrine to be somewhat faulty.