Well, 4 days ago you quoted John Maynard Smigh as saying "Typically, the
record consists of successive ancetor-descendant lineages, morphologically
invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates."
Thus, I would presume that your own quote would answer the last question.
Sudden morphological change IS supported by the fossil record. Whether that
change is due to God creating a new form or evolution suddenly producing new
morphologicalforms as is done in my programs, is certainly up for question.
But you also need to know what he means by morphologically invariant. He does
not mean identical. He is saying that the body plan is invariant. Trilobites
were all built on a three part body plan. But they were not identical.
Insects are all built on an invariant body plan, but a bee is not identical to
a wasp or moth.
Jim wrote:
"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?"
I apologize if that sounded bad. It was not meant to.I am always willing to
have my views criticized. If I wasn't, what am I doing posting on this board?
:-) I have only occasionally had complementary replies to my views.
But on the other hand the question was not meant to be a put off, but merely
to point out that the source of your information is not direct examinantion of
the rocks and fossils. You are getting your information from someone else
and thus are in the position of having to trust that they did the work
correctly. What if they didn't?
By the way, I have done graduate work in philosophy but no doctoral work in
theology. I am admittedly a lousy theologian and a lousy lawyer. I just
thought of this analogy. If I read a book on legal theory which stated that
western jurisprudence does not really grant private property rights, would I
be doing good or bad if I tried to convince everyone elsethat the lawyers have
been lying to us?
You wrote:
"What you keep missing is that the data is not at issue -- it is the
interpretation thereof. I have read the interpretations of the leading
evolutionists. I accept the findings of paleontology. But you're saying I
cannot question their reasoning if I haven't dug for oil at sometime in my
life?"
No, I never said that. You have stated that there are no minor stratimorphic
lineages. I gave you several. You stated that large scale change could not
be accounted for by small change. I gave you the example of the whale. I am
not questioning your right to challenge the experts, I am however, questioning
whether or not you know what is in the fossil record. If I must grant you the
right to question the experts, you must grant me the right to question your
knowledge and I must equally grant you the right to question mine. I don't
care if you question my facts. If I am erroneous factually, then I want to
fix it. Look back at the question Fr. Wooley asked me about the Magellan
story. His point was excellent and I was unprepared to answer it. I withdrew
my claim until I could fix it. I will do it again when it is appropriate.
Dealing with science requires this willingness to back up. So question my
abilities, knowledge, logic all you want. I am eager for it. But allow me to
question yours also.
I also remember Denis Lamoreaux on the reflector in March stating that unti
l he personally had examined hominid teeth, he didn't believe that evolution
was possible. After he had examined them, he became convinced that the data
he was being taught by apologists was not correct. That was my experience
also in geology. Christians above all must be above reproach in their use of
evidence and data.
As to the final comment about me being condescending, once again I apologize
for any bad tone in my post. But I am very very concerned that what
Christian apologists have been writing about geology is flat wrong and they do
not seem very amenable to correcting their factual errors, not their
interpretational errors.
glenn