In article ,
Fletis Humplebacker ! wrote:
John Brock wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker

"John Harshman"

Right. I'm asking you to keep this in mind. That definition of "sudden"
is not a big problem for standard Darwinian theory.

Sure it is. According to many or most of those who do this
professionally the suddeness is a big problem, hense the theories
that go beyond Darwinian thinking to accomodate it. I've posted
quotes that demonstrate it, your cognitive dissonance doesn't
make them disappear.

I've got a question for you Fletis. The people you are quoting
are in fact strong believers in evolution, whatever caveats they
might have about the details. You seem to believe that you are
sufficiently sharp that you can see implications in their words
that they themselves are not clever enough to see. Why do you
believe this?

I'm sorry that it escaped your attention. Many quotes specifically
stated that they themselves see problems. You are minimizing things
quite a bit by calling them caveats of detail. The point is that the
fossil record doesn't fit the beliefs. There's no scientific evidence
that can demonstrate how evolution could have happened on its'
own. That's the point.

You have ignored my question! I already knew that *you* believe
these quotes undermine the case for evolution. But the quotes come
from highly intelligent and well informed people who in fact believe
that the theory of evolution is true. So how do you account for
this apparent contradiction?

Let me break my question down into smaller pieces that you might
have less trouble with. I'm going to make a series of statements
-- please let me know if you disagree with any of them:

1) The scientists that are being quoted do in fact support evolution
and reject Intelligent Design. Yes? No?

2) Unless they are hypocrites (or joking), people who believe in
something do not *knowingly* make statements which would imply that
the things they believe are untrue. Yes? No?

3) As a rule scientists are not hypocrites. The vast majority
actually believe the things they say they believe. Yes? No?

4) As a consequence of 1, 2 and 3, it can be concluded that the
scientists you are quoting do not themselves believe that their
statements cast doubt on the theory of evolution, or open the door
to Intelligent Design. Yes? No?

5) You on the other hand *do* believe that these quotes cast doubt
on the theory of evolution, and *do* open the door to Intelligent
Design. Yes? No?

6) If you are right about this, then it follows that these quotes
have implications that the scientists who made them did not see,
but which you *do* see. Yes? No?

Did you follow that? If so, let me repeat my question. Why do
you believe that you are capable of seeing implications in quotes
that were missed by the scientists who made them? Do you feel you
are more perceptive than those scientists? Smarter? Better
informed? What? Scientists in general are very smart people. Do
you believe that you are as smart as the scientists you are quoting?
(That wasn't a rhetorical question. Do you?)

Actually, why not be even more direct? Can you tell my why you
believe you are even competent to be in this debate at all? Suppose
you stumbled upon some web sites which claimed that the theory of
Relativity was wrong, and which included quotes from eminent
physicists which seemed (at least to you) to support this claim.
Based entirely on your own reading of those web sites and those
quotes, would you, a non-physicist (I'm assuming), feel competent
to debate Einstein's theory with physics professors? Of course
not! Only a total ignoramus would do that! Right?

And yet, while you wouldn't feel competent draw conclusions from
Einstein's words which differed from Einstein's own, you apparently
have no difficulty believing that you can turn Stephen J. Gould's
own words against him. So where does this confidence come from?

Understand, I am not asking you to prove to *me* that you are
competent -- I'm simply asking what are your reasons for believing
it *yourself*. After all, the world is full of people who pontificate
on subjects that they don't actually understand, and who can't be
made to understand this. (Yes? No?) Incompetent people tend not
to realize that they are incompetent, and I think even you would
have to agree that it would be the most ordinary and unremarkable
thing in the world if you turned out to be just another clueless
bozo who didn't know what he was talking about. What I am really
interested in is finding out why *you* believe this isn't so!
--
John Brock