Some Help from the Creationist

Too bad you haven't got any gaps to mention. If you did you'd be able to take them to an appropriate forum. It appears that after all this time you haven't been able to remember just what a theory is. That suggests a serious learning problem or a significant logic shortfall.

Hilarious! Since your gaps remark shows that you don't know what a theory is. Thanks for that.

Yes, it is about what a theory is or isn't. You claimed to know what a theory is then you use missing fossils as support for a gap in the theory. Others are trying to tell you that this shows that you do not know what a theory is.You claimed to both know what a theory is and that there are gaps in the ToE. You have been asked to show those gaps. Missing fossils are an issue with the evidence but not the theory unless the pattern of what is missing is a problem.You have not shown such a problem. You and others have been shown that such a fossil problem doesn't exist.You have been here long enough to know that. You have also been here plenty long enough to have stumbled on an explanation of the difference between theory and fact. In addition, you should, by now, understand the decoupling between scientific views and religious beliefs for most believers.It seems you aren't getting even the more simple concepts involved in these discussions. Is it perhaps not a good use of your time to be spinning your wheels and learning nothing?

And yet almost every time you post anything that touchs on the concept you supply evidence that you do not know what a theory is.Perhaps it would put me in my place if you gave your own wording of what a theory is and why that definition makes your comments regarding gaps in the fossil record as being a gap IN the theory. The concepts are only a wee bit subtle so you should be able to manage if you have done enough work to deserve the right to make any comments about it.Commenting from a complete lack of understanding is an interesting position.

You have used the word "proven" that is not something that you should use in this context since it is both a loaded word and subject to several meanings.You mostly describe a process in that statement you don't do much in the way of defining a theory. The phrase "logical explanation" begins to suggest some idea of it. Perhaps you could have another go at the definition? Obviously evidence which goes against a theory is a suggestion that there is a flaw in the theory. The evidence isn't the flaw itself I'd say if I wanted to be dammed pedantic. Lack of evidence is much, much less likely to be useful in improving a theory as it most frequently simple means just that something has yet to turn up or is beyond the technology that is availble to test.A true gap or flaw would be something that the theory should explain but can not; at least to me. An example of this in the original Darwinian forumlation was the lack of a mechanism for hereditity. In fact, a serious flaw should have been apparent with the idea about blended inheritance of the time. Blending as, I think, some saw it then would not allow the new features of an organism to not be washed out in a population.

I apologize, you do know what a theory is. Thanks for the trouble.

I think that the distinction is only one of degree of certainty so I wouldn't get in a knot about it.