How does evolution explain the gaps?

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.

I'm actually not - could you enlighten me? As far as I know, Biblical accounts are no more accurate than any other mythological account, which is to say not very. That's evidence against a biblical flood and for plate tectonics. I don't understand why you mention this in support of your views. What an incredible dodge! You've just made it patently obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Look, we're having a discussion about evidence. That means you either have to provide evidence or shut up. You have to present evidence first before you can accuse people of ignoring it. Time to provide some evidence that you claim contradicts evolution. Tell ya what, I'll make you a deal. I promise, that if you can present some evidence for creatinist views that's beyond reproach or refutation I'll become a creationist. Seriously. I promise. Let me ask you this - if a program hoped to present the current majority of scientific thought on the origin of species, why would it be inappropriate to present the theory of evolution? By your own apparent admission it's what the majority of scientists think. I think you're enough of a media consumer to realize that nothing on TV is presented as "established fact" any more than anything else. Ever watch Fox News?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-06-2003]

Are you illiterate, or just disingenuous? Either way does not bode well for a rational discussion with you.You may or may not be aware that SPLx has not admitted anything of the sort, but was merely quoting your own words to you, in response to your denial of having said them. Your response is an infantile playground game.So, on one hand, you're unable to read, or on another you're apparently a liar. Is this how you witness for your god?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-06-2003]