<<I hate to be the one to inform you but the simulations of how air flows over
the wings and fuselage of an airplane are full of numerous ssumptions and
approximations. And yet, in spite of the numerous assumptions and
approximations, that simulation tells the engineer how the plane will
respond. Today you seem to be saying implying that modeling an airplane is
somehow a different sort of activity than modeling other areas of nature. It
is not. >>
If there is anything that does NOT change gradually, it appears to be your
understanding of the way issues are presented. I'm not going to pause to
correct this peculiar stasis further, except to say that the difference
between diagnostics and re-construction is quite apparent.
Glenn: << We know that morphological change occurs by means of mutations,
which are alterations in the order of nucleotides in DNA...While this change
is minor, it proves that morphological change occurs via alterations in DNA.>>
This is not news. But we are asking the question, is large scale change in the
REAL world plausible via this mechanism? Is it supported by the fossil record?
No and no, unless one is willing to take a leap of faith from a theoretical
model (even one on a computer!) to the physical world where the evidence is
decidedly scant.
<<Let me ask you. How many fossils have you personally examined? How many
feet of oil well core have you studied?>>
How many times do we have to hear this tired "I'm an oil man" story? This is
simply another variation of the "I'm an expert, don't dare criticize" defense
which seeks to bolster claims by keeping critics at bay. Have I asked you how
many philosophers you've examined, or whether you've done doctoral work in
theology?
What you keep missing is that the data is not at isssue--it is the
interpretation thereof. I have read the interpretations of the leading
evolutionists. I accept the findings of paleontolgy. But you're saying I
cannot question their reasoning if I haven't dug for oil at sometime in my
life? (I have, you know, but I was only six, and couldn't find a dang thing in
the hill behind my house). Or because I haven't physically handled the same
number of thigh bones as Stephen Jay Gould?
Right.
You have some sound arguments, but you "overplay your hand" (to get back to
cards, where we belong). It's a bit of a bluff, as evidenced by your lack of
"poker face." For when you assume a set of beliefs in a correspondent
(unfairly), and then condescend with "Look, it is not your fault that you
believe such things," well, one has to wonder if it's only an inside straight
you're drawing to. When you make phony claims to others, viz. "I was talking
to Jim about the smaller changes which he thought didn't exist" simply to make
your position look better, I'd say it's time to cash in your chips. The real
players are eventually going to move on.
Jim