How does evolution explain the gaps?

quote:

---

Jet:
Nothing falls flatter than the TOE when it faces true scientific study

---

Pehaps you can outline a few such scientific studies for us.

So, I guess you were simply using empty (false) rhetoric.How surprising.Of course, since you have all the answers in your religious literature, perhaps you can provide the begats and begots from Adam to me.If you cannot, then surely your Faith is foundationless.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-24-2003]

quote:

---

Jet:
How very interesting that I received four replies, not one of which had any real substance. We weren't discussing footsteps, or rocks, or even begats and begots, for that matter.

---

Your replies were meant to show the implausability of your "challenge." Speaking for myself, I meant to show you the double-standards employed by creationists. Your response essentially validates my position.It should be far easier for the creationist to name each and every parent, grandparent, etc. of any living individual than for an evolutionist to name all transitional species from "microbe to man" if for no other reason the fact that the creationist only has to deal with 0.0005% of the time that the evolutionist does.
That you blew it off as not sunstantive demonstrates your inability to live up to your own standards.

quote:

---

We were discussing whether the TOE can be considered valid when remaining in the realm of science. I claim that the TOE must abandon the very science that evolutionists demand that proponents of creationism adhere to in order for the TOE to explain the existance of species today, as they relate to those that supposedly lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.

---

You can say that.You can even believe it.It does not make is so.The creationist relies upon attacks on evolution for 'evidence'. Claiming, for example, radiometric dating is wrong does NOT by any stretch of the imagination mean that the earth is only 10,000 yewars old.Can you not see that?Here is a claim by creationists:DNA equals shape.They say this in an attempt to minimize the impact of molecular phylogenetic studies indicating that evolution - even the dreaded macroevolution - has occurred.So, let us test the creationist claim:Whose DNA is more similar to a whales - a hippo's or a shark's?Answer that question and you will have a substantive answer (thank you RR and/or PP)

quote:

---

Exactly how does one go about attempting to scientifically falsify an assertion of the TOE that is made when it concerns something that supposedly happened 100,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000 years ago. I do not attempt to explain anything about rocks, or footsteps, or begetting, begatting, and begotting.

---

That seems to be because you employ double standards and otherwise cannot 'explain' scientifically anything about creationism.

quote:

---

rathe I attempt to explain the existance of life based upon that which I know, namely, the Holy Scriptures. I do not attempt to use purely scientific methods to explain obvious Spiritual Truths any more than an evolutionist would attempt to use Spiritual Discernment to explain the concepts involved within Darwinian evolution.

---

And thus you dive headlong out of the realm of science and into the realm of the supernatural.Another layer of double standards.

quote:

---

Whether evolutionists wish to admit it or not, there can be no doubt that the TOE must abandon truly scientific methods the further it moves back in time.

---

I am always amazed at the supreme confidnce the creationists have - especially when dictating what it is evolutionists must or must not accept/understand/adhere to/etc...

quote:

---

What cannot be tested scientifically cannot withstand the test of true science and the TOE cannot withstand the test of true science, even using their own accepted definition of same.

---

Your point?One can test hypotheses. I did it all the time in graduate school. It does not require supreme knowledge or revelation. It does not require a time machine. It does not even require knowledge of a long litany of intermediates.
It just requires knowing what to look for, and apparently, the creationist does not know what to look for.

quote:

---

However, you are all free to attempt to prove me wrong in this matter. Just explain the scientific methods that would be used to test the TOEs' claims concerning events that supposedly occurred 100,000 let alone 1,000,000 years ago. Have at it!

---

I can give you along list of papers that do this. You can find them, too. Go to:http://www.ncbi.nih.govchoose 'publication' in the search menu. Type in some key words like Primate and evolution.I think you will be shocked at what you see, for it will quite contrary to what Sarfati and co. will tell you...

Actually, as an evolutionist, one would only make an implicit statement of fact if one had already checked...

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...

quote:

---

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

---

message 40:
Jet: "...and every day more scientists are becoming aware that the TOE is a dead end road."That is certainly the implication.

quote:

---

We all know of the evidence that favors Biblical accounts of past events over the TOE.

---

Uh, no, 'we' don't.And frankly, I find that claim to be patently absurd.
I have seen sound refutations of the supposed 'evidences' you provide.You are at best out of the loop, scientifically. But you do project well.

So, you are just being elitist, arrogant, etc.?Or is this the latest in a long line of creationist double-standards?

quote:

---

Well, I do appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to admit that the TOE is in fact a "dead end".
Funny how that worked out

---

Almost as funny as the creationist blatantly distorting the words of an evolutionist. I'm shocked...------------------
(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:
...(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against...(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ..

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sedimentary layers that are separated by oceans and yet match up perfectly.

---

​

That's evidence against a biblical flood and for plate tectonics. I don't understand why you mention this in support of your views.

---

Especially interesting is the fact that most creationists claim the exact opposite - that there is no "geologic column" anywhere. And they that that THAT is evidence of 'the flood'.Maybe these guys should get together once in a while to get their stories striaght?