Replies

A "More Red Meat" bump ...

A "24 crevo threads in 14 days" bump.

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould,

I don't think I have ever read anywhere but here that evolution is a fact, just as I have never seen a fossil that was clearly a bridge between species. It would certainly seem Gould is unwilling to make such a claim as well.

“but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science”

Can any one reading this imagine any argument or demonstration that would cause an "evolutionist" to doubt his sacred cow?

Bump-o-ramma!

Another bump.

These people never quit, positing anyone who dare question evolution as a creationist. The fact is that 99.9% of the scientific community do not accept evolution as a scientific fact. After 150 years, not a single series of fossils have been found that demonstrate a gradual mutation of one species into a completely different species. This would require such gradual changes as one sees in the frames of a movie. No scientist, or group of scientists, or all scientists together, have put together such a gradual mutative change. Rather, changes are by great leaps, which modern evolutionists admit, and for mating purposes, such leaps would have to occur simultaneously in two animals. This is what Darwinists have to explain before their theory becomes a fact. That such leaps occur replies as much faith in their "science" as does the creationists faith in their "science." If you read Gould, even Darwin, carefully, they admit the limitations of the theory, but those limitations are not widely taught. If you want to hear them in the Darwinist's own words, read Phillip Johnson's, Darwin on Trial.

Evolution is a faith based system

Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that ...(b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory

There are others besides creationists who question the Big Bang Theory. Just about every year someone comes up with a new dark matter, black hole, brane, etc., that they say questions the Big Bang theory, or so challenges tenets of it as to make it indescribably different.
If challenging = pseudo-science, then deciding = faith. I'd prefer to call things on some scale such as first, second, third order theories. Call the Big Bang a 1st order theory. Call this "brane theory" a 2nd order theory. Call creationism a fourth order theory. Call the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle a 100th order theory. I don't see anything, except propaganda, aided by different sides using emotionalism against opposing theories.

From Space.com, 13 Apr 2001, "Faster than you can say "Ekpyrotic Universe," a movement has taken hold -- albeit like fingers on a ledge of eternal skepticism -- that would blow one of the basic tenets of the Big Bang to smithereens. Think parallel branes and five dimensions. Science never sounded so cool. The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time. These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space, along with time, make up the four known dimensions.) "It's almost crazy enough to be correct