How does evolution explain the gaps?

Jet has a knack for choosing out-of-context quotes. He's also been warned previously about long signatures.I will shortly release software that will use only the first 100 characters in any signature.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Actually I really didn't make myself clear in the original post. What I really mean, is that evolutionists would predict that birds and snakes share more similar DNA. I don't mean to imply that they would assume this a priori. But based on the fossil evidence, birds and snakes should share more similar DNA. Based on the commmon designer argument, birds and bats should share more similar DNA.FK

To be honest, that's what I thought you probably meant
but it was a good opportunity to emphasise the scientific
nature of evolutionists

So as to eliminate the possibility of being accused of taking a quote "out of context" while remaining in line with the future allowance of characters within a signature, I have changed my signature. However, I doubt the evolutionists will appreciate the change.ShalomJet------------------
Signature too long, 100 chars max.

Reference of new signature is supplied. Hope this will satisfy the lot of you to whom this quote applies.ShalomJet------------------
"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD. Psalm 14:1

Jet has a new signature:

quote:

---

"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD. Psalm 14:1

---

Whosoever saith Thou Fool shall be in danger of hell fire.
(Matthew 5:22)Assuming the Bible is correct, what does that say for Jet and the author of Psalms? ------------------
Signature too long, 100 chars max.

quote:

---

Actually, I didn't expect that you would, or even could, supply me with even a single example of a life form evolving from its' beginning, ending at its' present form today.

---

How about bacteria, or some other single-celled animal? They have been around in one form or another for almost as long as life has existed.OTOH, Nobody, anywhaere has claimed that Biology has all knowledge. We do have a great deal of information upon which to base our current understanding, and the ToE has fared at least as well over the years than most scientific theories of similar scope.Are you doubting Biology because we don't have perfect knowledge we never claimed to have in the first place? Why?

quote:

---

That was one of the points I was attempting to make. Using your scientific literature, you are still left impotent when trying to explain how the TOE is even a viable theory, let alone a scientific one.

---

Bull.The ToE is based upon testable hypothese, has positive evidence to confirm it, and is falsifiable, so it is quite scientific.Please explain how hundereds of thousands of professional scientists would continue to persue an unscientific theory. Also explain how modern medicine makes any advances at all considering that, according to you Biology is based on an unscientific theory.

quote:

---

I, on the other hand, using my religious literature, am fully able to explain an even more indepth timeline, beginning before the emergence of corporial life, and ending at the present day. Now I realize that you would reject this out of hand, due to your revulsion to the idea that "God did it!"

---

I have no revulsion at the idea. I simply reject it as a scientific idea. As it is a religious one, it is in the same category as any other religious idea; IOW, they all have the same amount of evidence...zero.

quote:

---

You are much more comfortable with the idea that "evolution did it", even though you are not able to understand or explain all of the where's and why's concerning your insistance in this ancient, yet udated, pagan fable.

---

Are you comfortable with the idea that "Physicsa did it", even though you are not able to understand or explain all of the where's and why's of gravity?Yes or no will suffice.

quote:

---

I have at least done my homework when it comes to the thought of evolution as the main reason life exists as it does today.

---

Um, right.

quote:

---

As I have stated numerous times, the idea of evolution is as old as the hills and any indepth study of ancient pagan beliefs will confirm this fact.

---

Link to any legitimate site which provides any evidence for this in the least, please, or stop making the claim.

quote:

---

Granted, the modern day TOE has added new twists and turns in order to make this ancient fable more palatable to what the scriptures refer to as the "darkened minds" of those who are labeled as foolish because "the fool has said in their heart, there is no God."

---

Hot air.

quote:

---

So let's just leave it at that. You continue with your "evolution did it" beliefs and I will continue with my "God did it" belief, sure in the knowledge that I am following the right path, and you are on the path to failure, disappointment, and, like every other living thing that has, does, or will exist, eventual death.

---

Guess what? You are going to die eventually, too, and nobody actually knows what happens after. You hope your belief is the right one, but you can only believe. You don't actually KNOW.

quote:

---

The only difference between us concerns what comes afterwards. For you, apparently nothing, according to your beliefs.

---

Actually, I don't know what happens after death. Neither does anyone else. Anybody who says otherwise is just afraid of death.

quote:

---

For me, according to my belief and faith in God, some of us will be raised unto everlasting glory with God, Our Father. And some of us will be raised unto everlasting shame and contempt.

​

Personally, I don't care for what your future holds for you, regardless of which belief, evolution or creation, is championed. I will admit, however, thatI wish somehow your eyes could be opened, and that you would return to that which you have abandoned. And I do not mean that you should return to catholicism, but rather that you would return to Christ. Here's to hoping for the seemingly impossible, knowing that "with God, all things are possible."

---

If being a Christian like you, Jet, means that I would have to take my brains out and reject what I can see with my own two eyes and think with my mind, then no thanks.You constantly ignore my direct questions and instead abuse and preach.BTW, you still haven't told me how we can tell the difference between a system which is Intelligently Designed and a natural one which we haven't figured out yet or may not ever figure out?

quote:

---

And if so, why would you knowingly use a paragraph that was so blatantly out of context to give a misleading impression of what Greenstein had to say?

---

...um, let me guess.He didn't know because it was lifted from a Creationist site which misquotes to change meaning as a matter of course.

While it has been some time since I have had access to the internet, I felt your post required a reply. Your statement is a clear indication of the fact that you are not a student of the Bible, not to mention the fact that your reply, taken out of the context of the narrative, would give any reader a false understanding of said passage. I doubt that you will but I suggest you lay your hands on a good concordance, using same as a reference when attempting to quote the Scriptures. That which is not understood, or comprehended, is best left to those who are willing to invest a substantial amount of their time in order to gain a fuller understanding.ShalomJet------------------
"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD. Psalm 14:1

Rather than attempting to answer inquiries which have already been answered numerous times, I shall instead concentrate on a single paragraph of yours.Shraf:The ToE is based upon testable hypothese, has positive evidence to confirm it, and is falsifiable, so it is quite scientific.***Depending upon whose interpretation of data you rely upon, your statement above is both correct and incorrect. Few, if any, hardcore evolutionists approach this problem with a truly open mind. You are a prime example. To evolutionists like yourself, anyone relying on their faith in the Scriptures, marrying that faith to the mountains of evidence confirming creation by intelligent design as the only viable explanation for the existance of life, is either crazy, or stupid, or both.Accepting that, you must obviously have included yourself, according to your previous beliefs, in that same arena. On the other hand, creationists like myself understand that the champions of that bankrupt theory known as the TOE are either extremely misled, or at least are willfully ignorant of the Truth. To each their own!***Shraf: Please explain how hundereds of thousands of professional scientists would continue to persue an unscientific theory.***Money talks, plain and simple. Evolutionists tend to disregard facts in favor of obvious fantasy when their grant money, and even their jobs are on the line. The TOE is a fallacy, is most surely not scientific, at least not in total, and every day more scientists are becoming aware that the TOE is a dead end road. As to the rest of your post, it is obvious to me that you are blinded to any Truths revealed that do not fully support your position, regardless of the mountains of evidence that refute the TOE in part, and in whole.It is most interesting to watch any of the numerous BBC programs concerning evolution and listen to the claims made therein that could never be falsified scientifically. Supposition, conjecture, guesswork, and extremely bold, false statements are presented as established fact and are the benchmark of these new age programs that seek to indoctrinate children at a very early age into the fantasy world known as the TOE!***ShalomJet------------------
"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD. Psalm 14:1

You're clearly mistaken about what an open mind means. An open mind judges the merit of all alternatives by the evidence in favor of each. But once that decision is made, why revisit without new evidence? Many of us, Schraf included I assume, judged your bible honestly in regards to the evidence, and rejected it. Without new evidence, why judge again? Are we supposed to do all that work any time somebody with a bible comes up and says "Hey, believe this"?A truly open mind is not so open that it's brains fall out. Rejecting that which there is every reason to believe is false is not the sign of a closed mind, but a rational one. Truly, an intractible problem. The only thing to do, I guess, is weigh the evidence for each view, objectively and rationally, and attempt to determine which is the most accurate. Scientists, of course, have been doing this all along. I'm not sure the same could be said for creationists, but I could be wrong. You know, every other creationist talks about the same "mountains of evidence", but none to my knowledge have presented any that they have been able to succesfully defend. Maybe you'd care to be the first?Anyway, your view of the scientific community is nieve at best. If the ToE could be seriously, scientifically disproved, they'd hand the person that did it the Nobel Prize. There's no better way to get famous in science than by overturning paradigms.Soory about being "blind", I guess we're blinded by the evidence. Hard stuff to ignore, that evidence. Unless, of course, you're a creationist. You may or may not be aware that the "science" presented on TV is not presented for scientific edification, but rather for entertainment. The claims of the BBC or any other media conglomerate do not represent the same caliber of knowledge as published, scientific theory. In the same way that Jerry Falwell does not represent the views of all believers, the BBC does not represent the claims of all science.

Jet,So, that Creation 'science' Institue that you are doing research for...don't they have computers and internet access?Anyway, I notice that, true to form, you avoid my direct questions, even one which would only have required a yes or no answer. For your convenience, I'll repeat them here:Are you doubting Biology because we don't have perfect knowledge we never claimed to have in the first place? Why?

quote:

---

Jet: I, on the other hand, using my religious literature, am fully able to explain an even more indepth timeline, beginning before the emergence of corporial life, and ending at the present day. Now I realize that you would reject this out of hand, due to your revulsion to the idea that "God did it!"

---

I have no revulsion at the idea. I simply reject it as a scientific idea. As it is a religious one, it is in the same category as any other religious idea; IOW, they all have the same amount of evidence...zero.Are you comfortable with the idea that "Physics did it", even though you are not able to understand or explain all of the where's and why's of gravity?Yes or no will suffice.

quote:

---

Jet: As I have stated numerous times, the idea of evolution is as old as the hills and any indepth study of ancient pagan beliefs will confirm this fact.

---

Link to any legitimate site which provides any evidence for this in the least, please, or stop making the claim.BTW, you still haven't told me how we can tell the difference between a system which is Intelligently Designed and a natural one which we haven't figured out yet or may not ever figure out?From your current post:

quote:

---

Money talks, plain and simple. Evolutionists tend to disregard facts in favor of obvious fantasy when their grant money, and even their jobs are on the line.

---

Really? So, again I ask you, how is it that Medical Science is able to progress in the least if the ToE is a useless theory, as the foundations of Biology and Genetics are in large part based upon the ToE?

quote:

---

The TOE is a fallacy, is most surely not scientific, at least not in total, and every day more scientists are becoming aware that the TOE is a dead end road.

---

According to the most current information I could find, the percentage of scientists with legitimate credentials who give credence to Creation 'science' is 0.14%.Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creationPerhaps you would like to back up your claim that "more and more" scientists are turning away from the ToE in favor of religious explanations?

quote:

---

As to the rest of your post, it is obvious to me that you are blinded to any Truths revealed that do not fully support your position, regardless of the mountains of evidence that refute the TOE in part, and in whole.

---

Show me the mountains of evidence, Jet. Show me. Right now. I'm waiting anxiously. I'm waiting.Before you do that, however, some answers to the questions you decided to avoid answering the first time, please.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Shraf, you are, IMHO, the epitome of the "BLINDED DUE TO WILLFUL IGNORANCE" crowd. As usual, you open with a poorly veiled attempt at insult before moving on to your questions.POINT BY POINT ANSWERS FOR SHRAF...ANSWER #1. No.ANSWER #2. No.ANSWER #3. Simply by using the God given abilities of logic and reason.ANSWER #4. Puhleeeez! Are you suggesting that the foundations of Biology and Genetics were baseless and/or non-existant before the TOE?True to form, you credit me with a statement that I don't recall making. My statement read as follows..."every day more scientists are becoming aware that the TOE is a dead end road." However, for some unknown reason, that same statement appeared on your computer screen in the following, altered manner.......[SHRAF: Perhaps you would like to back up your claim that "more and more" scientists are turning away from the ToE in favor of religious explanations?]Maybe it's me, or maybe it's you or your computer but I looked and looked and yet I could not find where I supposedly made the above statement. Please be kind enough to point out to me in which post I made the above statement. Thank You.As to your ending statements, please refer to message #40 again. Perhaps you simply skimmed the post, or perhaps your speed reading skills need some polishing. Which ever is the case, please read message #40 again for total clarification.ShalomJet------------------
"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD. Psalm 14:1

quote:

---

That which is not understood, or comprehended, is best left to those who are willing to invest a substantial amount of their time in order to gain a fuller understanding

---

Could not have said it better myself...Of course, when an 'evo' says something like that, it is because they are 'elitist', arrogant, trying to browbeat, etc...

quote:

---

...and every day more scientists are becoming aware that the TOE is a dead end road.

---

It is interesting that you write this.On the ARN forum, anti-Darwinists have been saying this very emphatically for some time. They insist that only by adopting theistic science/Intelligent Design, can any true progress be made.A few days ago, someone posted an interesting response to these claims.This fellow mentioned one Dean Kenyon, "former evolutionist", whose previous area of expertise was abiogenesis. He even wrote a popular text on the issue. Then, in the early seventies, if I recall correctly, he had a conversion. The usual "witnessing" replays it as he concluded that evolution was untenable because of his research, but it all seems to have coincided with a religious conversion (funny how that seems to work...).Anyway, if what the creationists say has merit - that evolution is a dead-end, that ID/creationism is the way to go, that so many real scientists are 'changing sides' because of this, it stands to reason that Kenyon should have been churning out papers since his conversion.Did that happen?Since this conversion, Kenyon has co-authored a popular creationism "textboook", "Of Pandas and People".And that is about it.No original research. Nothing. In nearly 30 years...Funny how that works...No wonder so many real scientists are sticking with the 'dead end' that evolution is...