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