Re: Morphological change

GRMorton@aol.com
Thu, 8 Jun 1995 00:02:18 -0400

Jim Bell wrote:
"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."

I asked a question a couple of days ago to someone, maybe you, can you define
what you would accept as evidence? I have often joked that the correct
number of transitional forms for an evolutionist is 0 and for a creationist
an infinite number. What would be a fair definition for a successful
explanation? While you might be able to see faith a'leaping, I can see
logical traps a' falling.

You wrote:
"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. "

If I am going to do this right, give me until Monday..

glenn