<<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.>>
Thanks for the apology. It just seemed to me that you were injecting your
experience in geology as an end-of-argument exclamation point (which rather
surprised me, as we were talking genetics). On top of that, you assumed
certain positions I never took.
I get testy about that, even if it's from a wildcatter. Finish your whiskey
and come out with guns blazing.
Or not.
Anyway, as to your assumption that gradual change explains large scale change,
and that we have the record to prove it, I think my reading of the experts is
as valid as the next guy. I can discern leaps of faith and logical pretzels. I
assume you can, too. In fact, let's explore that.
For starters, if you'd like to make the case that Kurt Wise and Phil Johnson
(to name two) are both wrong on this issue, I would like to hear it.
Jim