: First of all, I only mentioned the fossil record, and I didn't say "does
: not support," but does not unequivocally support". All of the other lines
: of evidence you mention are legitimate supporting data for common descent,
: just as the fossil record is. But none of them completely eliminates all
: competing explanations.
Why not take all these lines of evidence together? Does the strength of
combining several different lines of evidence still not provide sufficient
evidence for common descent? If so, why not? By competing explanations do
you mean some other scientific hypothesis or do you mean that they all show
evidence of design?
: Getting back to the fossil record, what does it show? It shows that
: different kinds of animals existed at different times, and that there is a
: progression of development -- ammonites were here before birds, for
: example. (This is what I mean by development in stages) Common descent is
: a reasonable inference from the fossil record, but I would quibble with the
: assertion that it's the _only_ reasonable inference.
What are other reasonable inferences?
: So what does that leave? As a Christian who is not a biologist or a
: paleontologist, the alternative is some form of progressive creation.
Why do you see the need for an alternative? Are you saying that the
interpretation of the fossil evidence and all other cladistic and
zoological evidence by a Christian cannot result in the acceptance of
common descent? You seem to be saying that, yes, common descent is an
entirely valid conclusion to make after examining the evidence, but that
conclusion cannot be made by a Christian and therefore one needs to believe
in an alternative that lies outside the bounds of science. If I am
misinterpreting, please correct me.
--Glenn A. Friedrich.