That was not a "pardon me" of offense having been taken. It was a 'pardon me"
of I can't believe my ears. Since I got my explanation,(which you seem to
admit does not rely on imaginative data)from the evolutionists, the logical
conclusion would seem to be that their data is not so imaginative either.
Kevin wrote:
"Let's not also forget, Glenn, that you can manipulate the data for evolution
so that it *seems to* speak eloquently for the theory. But that is more an
artifact of masterful manipulation than it is a compelling argument."
My mama always wanted me to grow up to be a master manipulator. I have
now arrived. She would be so proud. :-) Since you 'see through' my
manipulation what would you consider to be necessary to move the argument from
*seeming to* to a state of *actually does* speak eloquently for the theory?
I think the data *actually does* speak eloquently for the theory.
Kevin wrote:
"There isn't enough compelling evidence to warrant the acceptance ofevolution.
THis isn't just what Kevin thinks. This is a pattern of explanation which
you can see for yourself in countless journal articles in reputable scientific
periodicals and manuscripts."
I think you are confusing the discussion in those journals of how evolution
occurred with whether it occurred.
Kevin wrote:
"I say again: morphology is not a very solid indicator of relatedness. I
appreciate your explanation, but this IS my simple response to your effort.
There are plenty of life forms which share very similar shapes, but to infer
evolutionary *relatedness* from this presupposes that evolution is valid! You
can't argue that two critters must be related becasue they share similar
morphological traits. Sorry!"
So I guess that we can not conclude that the German Shepherd is related to
theDoberman Pincher or that a siamese is related to a persian. Or more to the
point, you would say that we can not use morphological similarity to argue
that the dogs are related to the wolf and that housecats are related to that
desert cat(I forget his name) which lives in southern Egypt and is believed to
be the wild progenitor of all kitties.
Kevin wrote:
"You say 11 toes means that a critter must be transitional."
I messed up. It is 8 toes. Sorry. Memory is bad but the fact is that the
earliest tetrapods do not have a standard design for the tetrapod foot. Why
did God choose a different design at this point? And then settle on a less
complicated form - the pentdactyl one? Where is the common design?
I asked Kevin to show me where the data was wrong. He replied.
"No sir, I am not required to do this. The DATA isn't the problem. Stop being
so focused on the data. The problem is HOW THE DATA IS MANIPULATED INTO A
STORY."
I am sorry. I thought science's job was to be focused on the data.
Kevin wrote:
"I still maintain that you are at risk of seeing what you expect to see and
will *find* what your predisposition tells you to expect."
We all fall victim to this. THat is why I am so quick to admit a provable
error and backtrack when I mess up. I fell victim early in my life to seeing
the data as I thought it ought to be. I mislead a lot of people by my former
writings and I do not want that happening to me (or them) again.
glenn