RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[abelcainsbrother]

Based on Occam's razor I have given more evidence than you have.

Eh? Occam's Razor is not a philosophy that says less evidence is better than more.

I cannot change your mind

I'm afraid that's probably true, not because you have no convincing evidence and not because of my obduracy, but because you have no idea how to express yourself coherently.

you can ignore the evidence I've given for what I believe

I have not ignored your evidence. I have studied it carefully and explained why I don't accept it.

which you have not done yet

I have not done what, exactly? This makes no sense at all.

you still choose to look at the evidence in the earth from an evolution viewpoint

Wrong again. You haven't read my earlier post at all, have you?

when you nor any scientist has ever given evidence that demonstrates life evolves.

Yes, I have, in some detail, in a post of a few hours ago. Why are you pretending I haven't?

My evidence for the former world is simple,it is the fossils that show the different kind of life that lived in it until it perished.

I have reviewed your evidence, above, and explained why I find it wanting. If there is something about my explanation you disagree with, please point it out.

Since you have no evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves you should not continue to look at the fossil evidence from that perspective, yet you choose to,which I can do nothing about.

This is culpably false. I explained at length why the evidence I presented persuaded me of the truth of evolution. If you want to do something about it, take it in small quotes, as I am doing with this post of yours, and say where you think I am wrong.

Instead of looking at the fossils as if life evolves for which there is no evidence to show it does,just look at the evidence from a lost world perspective instead.

I have done. I reviewed your evidence carefully, but found it not only unconvincing, but factually false and logically inconsistent.

See the life that lived in the former world,it's really easy to do. It had dinosaurs,hominids,trilobites,wooly mammoths,giant deer,sabre tooth cats,etc that lived in the former world.

This is just silly. Dinosaurs and woolly mammoths were not contemporaneous, and there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that.

The fossils don't help evolution anyway because all fossils found only show fully formed creatures that once lived and died

You really have no idea what evolution is about, do you? Living creatures are almost invariably fully formed.

and none show any transition or anything that would lead anybody to believe the life was evolving

Yes, they do, often.

you're adding evolution imagination into the fossil evidence.

Oh, dear me, abelcainsbrother, back to the same old tub-thumping, as if you haven't actually read any of my previous posts. Why not try to move on? If you disagree with any of the points I have made, quote them and explain why. Don't just revert to this fingers-in-ears "La-La-La-I can't hear you" sort of response. That seriously weakens any credibility you may have.

I have responded to you and the points you've made. I explained what I agree with and what I don't agree with but it is not me sticking my finger in my ears,it is you. All you have done is explained some of the reasons you accept evolution,but unlike I,you offer no evidence. I give evidence for what I believe and have given you evidence when you've asked for it,but you don't instead you just find reasons to explain the evidence I give away,while you just explain what you believe about evolution but do not offer evidence. I think that you know you must assume and speculate that little changes lead to big changes just like Charles Darwin did,but offer no evidence to back it up,you just choose to accept it anyway regardless of evidence. You act like I have no right to tell scientists how long they can have to demonstrate life evolves after 150 years of trying to and failing,yet continuing to push evolution as true science,when it is'nt as I have pointed out. If you choose to accept something regardless of the evidence then evidence won't be as important to you,but evidence is important to me.

[Audie]

"Hell is a place where there is only unreason."

[abelcainsbrother]

The fossils don't help evolution anyway because all fossils found only show fully formed creatures

Does anyone in science ever speak of organisms that are not fully formed?

Of course there are only fully formed organisms, not, what, partly formed..?
Is that the reason you say there is no evidence?

Describe such a thing, if you would. What might a "not fully formed" or, "partly formed" creature look like? How can you tell if it is or is not fully formed?

Anyone else who has an idea of what a "not fully formed" creature might look like is encouraged to say.

This is the problem when Darwin was pushing this evolution theory in "the origin of species" he wondered why fossils do not show transition,he knew they didn't,but he insisted anyway that transitional fossils would be found,he even said we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found and yet they never were found,instead evolutionists just made them into transitional fossils using evolution imagination and now they are considered transitional fossils based on their chart,but you're right,none show transition.My point stands that fossils don't help evolution because none show transition or any evidence they are evolving despite the fabricated chart.

[Audie]

The fossils don't help evolution anyway because all fossils found only show fully formed creatures

Does anyone in science ever speak of organisms that are not fully formed?

Of course there are only fully formed organisms, not, what, partly formed..?
Is that the reason you say there is no evidence?

Describe such a thing, if you would. What might a "not fully formed" or, "partly formed" creature look like? How can you tell if it is or is not fully formed?

Anyone else who has an idea of what a "not fully formed" creature might look like is encouraged to say.

This is the problem when Darwin was pushing this evolution theory in "the origin of species" he wondered why fossils do not show transition,he knew they didn't,but he insisted anyway that transitional fossils would be found,he even said we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found and yet they never were found,instead evolutionists just made them into transitional fossils using evolution imagination and now they are considered transitional fossils based on their chart,but you're right,none show transition.My point stands that fossils don't help evolution because none show transition or any evidence they are evolving despite the fabricated chart.

No, this is the problem: instead of answering you point in all directions like a pinwhee, everyone
is being biased and dishonest. Everyone but you. "Fabrications", you say?

I did not say there are no transitional forms. That is one of your fabrications.

But never mind, wevare accustomed to that.

I asked some questions. You did not answer any of them.

Now, again, you say all fossils are of fully formed creatures. Fine-

So, do you think there should have been "not fully formed" creatures if ToE is true?
Yes or no please.

And if so, what would be the characteristics to show it is not fully formed?
Half a wing? Half a lung? What?

[abelcainsbrother]

The fossils don't help evolution anyway because all fossils found only show fully formed creatures

Does anyone in science ever speak of organisms that are not fully formed?

Of course there are only fully formed organisms, not, what, partly formed..?
Is that the reason you say there is no evidence?

Describe such a thing, if you would. What might a "not fully formed" or, "partly formed" creature look like? How can you tell if it is or is not fully formed?

Anyone else who has an idea of what a "not fully formed" creature might look like is encouraged to say.

This is the problem when Darwin was pushing this evolution theory in "the origin of species" he wondered why fossils do not show transition,he knew they didn't,but he insisted anyway that transitional fossils would be found,he even said we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found and yet they never were found,instead evolutionists just made them into transitional fossils using evolution imagination and now they are considered transitional fossils based on their chart,but you're right,none show transition.My point stands that fossils don't help evolution because none show transition or any evidence they are evolving despite the fabricated chart.

No, this is the problem: instead of answering you point in all directions like a pinwhee, everyone
is being biased and dishonest. Everyone but you. "Fabrications", you say?

I did not say there are no transitional forms. That is one of your fabrications.

But never mind, wevare accustomed to that.

I asked a question. You did not answer.

Now, again, you say all fossils are of fully formed creatures. Fine-

So, do you think there should have been "not fully formed" creatures if ToE is true?
Yes or no please.

And if so, what would be the characteristics to show it is not fully formed?Lama


Yes,if evolution is true there should've been numerous transitional fossils found throughout the layers of strata,but they were not found as Darwin predicted,in other words there should be fossils showing clear transition between one kind of creature and another. Darwin was wrong and I think he knew it but he was trying to beat Lamarck to the punch when it comes to presenting evolution,he wanted the credit.If it had not been Charles Darwin,it would have been Lamarck that had pushed evolution. Darwin came up with a better theory to present evolution and it became very popular.

[Audie]

Does anyone in science ever speak of organisms that are not fully formed?

Of course there are only fully formed organisms, not, what, partly formed..?
Is that the reason you say there is no evidence?

Describe such a thing, if you would. What might a "not fully formed" or, "partly formed" creature look like? How can you tell if it is or is not fully formed?

Anyone else who has an idea of what a "not fully formed" creature might look like is encouraged to say.

This is the problem when Darwin was pushing this evolution theory in "the origin of species" he wondered why fossils do not show transition,he knew they didn't,but he insisted anyway that transitional fossils would be found,he even said we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found and yet they never were found,instead evolutionists just made them into transitional fossils using evolution imagination and now they are considered transitional fossils based on their chart,but you're right,none show transition.My point stands that fossils don't help evolution because none show transition or any evidence they are evolving despite the fabricated chart.

No, this is the problem: instead of answering you point in all directions like a pinwhee, everyone
is being biased and dishonest. Everyone but you. "Fabrications", you say?

I did not say there are no transitional forms. That is one of your fabrications.

But never mind, wevare accustomed to that.

I asked a question. You did not answer.

Now, again, you say all fossils are of fully formed creatures. Fine-

So, do you think there should have been "not fully formed" creatures if ToE is true?
Yes or no please.

And if so, what would be the characteristics to show it is not fully formed?Lama


Yes,if evolution is true there should've been numerous transitional fossils found throughout the layers of strata,but they were not found as Darwin predicted,in other words there should be fossils showing clear transition between one kind of creature and another. Darwin was wrong and I think he knew it but he was trying to beat Lamarck to the punch when it comes to presenting evolution,he wanted the credit.If it had not been Charles Darwin,it would have been Lamarck that had pushed evolution. Darwin came up with a better theory to present evolution and it became very popular.

Could you just once skip the op ed?

You still did not answer.

Try again.

Do you think a "transitional" creature means "not fully formed"?

If so, where did you get such an idea? It is nowhere in literature ot science.

You still gave no drscription of what you think a "transitional" or "not fully formed"
creature would be like. Instead you point fingers. fabricate ill motives, etc.

Try again. Do you think "transitional" and "not fully formed" mean thd same?

Try to describe what a not fully formed creature would be like.

No editorials this time.

[bippy123]

Yes and why can't a transitional creature not be fully formed ?
Is that some kind of law of science that says this ?

I guess someone forgot to tell this to those poor fruit flies that took part of that 80 year failed macroevolution study that produced absolutely nothing of value

[bippy123]

And why wouldn't we be seeing lots of these failed mutations on the fossil record if evolution was truly blind . As I said before ID isn't anti evolution , it's just anti Darwinian evolution . I believe as Behe believes , namely that these mutations are blind and random .

[abelcainsbrother]

Does anyone in science ever speak of organisms that are not fully formed?

Of course there are only fully formed organisms, not, what, partly formed..?
Is that the reason you say there is no evidence?

Describe such a thing, if you would. What might a "not fully formed" or, "partly formed" creature look like? How can you tell if it is or is not fully formed?

Anyone else who has an idea of what a "not fully formed" creature might look like is encouraged to say.

This is the problem when Darwin was pushing this evolution theory in "the origin of species" he wondered why fossils do not show transition,he knew they didn't,but he insisted anyway that transitional fossils would be found,he even said we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found and yet they never were found,instead evolutionists just made them into transitional fossils using evolution imagination and now they are considered transitional fossils based on their chart,but you're right,none show transition.My point stands that fossils don't help evolution because none show transition or any evidence they are evolving despite the fabricated chart.

No, this is the problem: instead of answering you point in all directions like a pinwhee, everyone
is being biased and dishonest. Everyone but you. "Fabrications", you say?

I did not say there are no transitional forms. That is one of your fabrications.

But never mind, wevare accustomed to that.

I asked a question. You did not answer.

Now, again, you say all fossils are of fully formed creatures. Fine-

So, do you think there should have been "not fully formed" creatures if ToE is true?
Yes or no please.

And if so, what would be the characteristics to show it is not fully formed?Lama


Yes,if evolution is true there should've been numerous transitional fossils found throughout the layers of strata,but they were not found as Darwin predicted,in other words there should be fossils showing clear transition between one kind of creature and another. Darwin was wrong and I think he knew it but he was trying to beat Lamarck to the punch when it comes to presenting evolution,he wanted the credit.If it had not been Charles Darwin,it would have been Lamarck that had pushed evolution. Darwin came up with a better theory to present evolution and it became very popular.

Could you just once skip the op ed?

You still did not answer.

Try again.

Do you think a "transitional" creature means "not fully formed"?

If so, where did you get such an idea? It is nowhere in literature ot science.

You still gave no drscription of what you think a "transitional" or "not fully formed"
creature would be like. Instead you point fingers. fabricate ill motives, etc.

Try again. Do you think "transitional" and "not fully formed" mean thd same?

Try to describe what a not fully formed creature would be like.

No editorials this time.

I answered you already,it doesn't bother you that Darwin was wrong? He is the main reason for the ToE so it should not be ignored. A transitional fossil would show clear transition between one kind of creature and another,so the fact they do not show transition is evidence against evolution. It cannot be both fully formed and transitional,you've just got that chart in your head and so you look at fossils as transitional fossils.It's not your fault though,you are just going on what you were taught and read in science books. I still say a former world,a lost world,different than this world makes the most sense when it comes to the fossils,they simply show the life that lived in that former world and it confirms the gap theory interpretation,that there was a gap between that world and this world,this is why it shows a different world than this world we now live in and biblically as you may know there is going to be another world in the future after this world.

[neo-x]

Yes and why can't a transitional creature not be fully formed ?
Is that some kind of law of science that says this ?

I guess someone forgot to tell this to those poor fruit flies that took part of that 80 year failed macroevolution study that produced absolutely nothing of value

I doubt Bippy, that 80 years is enough on any biological scale, and the purpose of the study wasn't to prove macro-evolution. It was to see gene mutations. Infact, some of the results were very interesting and insightful.

It's good to see you post.

[neo-x]

This is the problem when Darwin was pushing this evolution theory in "the origin of species" he wondered why fossils do not show transition,he knew they didn't,but he insisted anyway that transitional fossils would be found,he even said we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found and yet they never were found,instead evolutionists just made them into transitional fossils using evolution imagination and now they are considered transitional fossils based on their chart,but you're right,none show transition.My point stands that fossils don't help evolution because none show transition or any evidence they are evolving despite the fabricated chart.

No, this is the problem: instead of answering you point in all directions like a pinwhee, everyone
is being biased and dishonest. Everyone but you. "Fabrications", you say?

I did not say there are no transitional forms. That is one of your fabrications.

But never mind, wevare accustomed to that.

I asked a question. You did not answer.

Now, again, you say all fossils are of fully formed creatures. Fine-

So, do you think there should have been "not fully formed" creatures if ToE is true?
Yes or no please.

And if so, what would be the characteristics to show it is not fully formed?Lama


Yes,if evolution is true there should've been numerous transitional fossils found throughout the layers of strata,but they were not found as Darwin predicted,in other words there should be fossils showing clear transition between one kind of creature and another. Darwin was wrong and I think he knew it but he was trying to beat Lamarck to the punch when it comes to presenting evolution,he wanted the credit.If it had not been Charles Darwin,it would have been Lamarck that had pushed evolution. Darwin came up with a better theory to present evolution and it became very popular.

Could you just once skip the op ed?

You still did not answer.

Try again.

Do you think a "transitional" creature means "not fully formed"?

If so, where did you get such an idea? It is nowhere in literature ot science.

You still gave no drscription of what you think a "transitional" or "not fully formed"
creature would be like. Instead you point fingers. fabricate ill motives, etc.

Try again. Do you think "transitional" and "not fully formed" mean thd same?

Try to describe what a not fully formed creature would be like.

No editorials this time.

I answered you already,it doesn't bother you that Darwin was wrong? He is the main reason for the ToE so it should not be ignored. A transitional fossil would show clear transition between one kind of creature and another,so the fact they do not show transition is evidence against evolution. It cannot be both fully formed and transitional,you've just got that chart in your head and so you look at fossils as transitional fossils.It's not your fault though,you are just going on what you were taught and read in science books. I still say a former world,a lost world,different than this world makes the most sense when it comes to the fossils,they simply show the life that lived in that former world and it confirms the gap theory interpretation,that there was a gap between that world and this world,this is why it shows a different world than this world we now live in and biblically as you may know there is going to be another world in the future after this world.

That is not an answer ACB.

And Darwin was wrong on a number of things, but we know that already. Science isn't by the way, the method is self-correcting so it doesn't matter what you think or Darwin thought.

[neo-x]

QM matter pops out of literally, nothing.

That's not actually true.

Could you list your objection in a little more detail, K. thanks.

A quantum vacuum isn't literally nothing.

But that is exactly what it is, K, a vacuum. My point is that it starts as such but doesn't remain one because quantum particles appear eventually.

[neo-x]

Jac: Hooray for confusing material and efficient causality.

Exactly!

Neo: But as I was saying you can even mean nothingness as truly nothingness/complete vaccuum and still get quantum particles doing minor fluctuations. So it really doesn't matter how you define it, you still get the same thing. EDIT: And while all of this detail is to prove the point further still, my main point still stands that what we observe in the normal world doesn't hold in the quantum one, where the singularity began. So just by appealing to principles we observe in the regular world we can't appeal to BB or an origin in the QM.

Neo, what you assert is irrelevant for the point I am making - and that is, ALL things ULTIMATELY have a source - EVEN IF you do not see them. And, as a theist, you must believe that. The GAP is in our understanding of how God did these things. But you ultimately have the same problem that needs a source. One can speculate all day long that there IS no source just because you can't physically or otherwise quantify and prove it. But speculation of such is metaphysics. The other issue I have with what you seem to do is dismiss what Scripture says about these things. That and the fact that you are all hung up over gaps in understandings and seem upset at suggestions that God might have programmed (with considerable randomness with abilities of the things created), or tweaked them or whatever. I don't care in what dimension, whether we can see it, measure it, or whatever - as their must be some ULTIMATE force that is eternal, of great intelligence, and immense power. Plus, Neo, you say you believe in Christ - do you doubt what He has confirmed (the entire OT!)? I really don't see the benefit of what you're arguing for. On one hand you assert a Creator God, but on the other one, you insist He is not necessary to explain extraordinary things that must ULTIMATELY be traced back to some previous source - whether physical or spiritual: your choice! I find your logic to be exceptionally obscure.

To add: And when these supposedly uncaused things appear, what do they reveal? Design and functionality! And immediately so! Which unquestionably means the source was intelligent!

1. I agree with you, that there is a source.

2. I don't agree that we can prove it's our God. I believe it but can't prove it. Not from design or the nature of the universe. I think there is a very valid concern that the universe can spring out because of QM. And you can claim its God but again there is no necessary link to show as such. As you said, it is speculation... and might I say with a healthy dose of faith bias.

3. My position has always been that God probably set one mechanism, a grand one imo and then let everything unfold from there. And that's why6 it's hard to trace him back.

4. Jesus did confirm it. But regardless of that, I have no trouble with Adam and eve being real people. I just don't accept them being first humans. Its impossible to conclude from the evidence. And therein lies my objection. I don't know how to reconcile it. I have been quite honest about it.

5. My objection to you has been that you can't show God from creation at all. The more we know the more problematic it is. In fact it's useless in my opinion. All things may have a source is again a cause and effect notion, like Newtonian system but at QM, cause and effect is really not that black and white or simple, anymore. You keep saying that your argument gets around it by simply adding all things have a source and I am telling you, that may sound logical or rational in the Macro-world but at the micro isn't. And it was at Micro level that the singularity formed and happened. So this rationale doesn't apply.

And probably that is why it's hard for you to understand why Audie or me or maybe someone else is not accepting it. It's not that I am not understanding what you wrote. I am saying, it's wrong. And perhaps many times this type of misinformed reasoning lets many non-believers to think that Christian boards are exceptionally odd when it comes to science stuff.

So in essence, while I agree with your conclusion, your method of reaching it is really based on invalid reasons. At best what you are saying is a very weak argument, if an argument at all. You could say you believe it and I am fine with it. You could say you don't know what really happened, I have no objection to it. But when you say it's simply logical then, of course, I disagree, it is not logical. Maybe we need a better logic.

I know it's like taking away from a person their means to justify their creation story via science and the book but I don't think it's necessary to apply faulty logic to reach that conclusion.

Inserting God of the gaps doesn't help which ultimately comes in your argument no matter which approach you take.

I hope this explains a few things.

TL;dr: I'm being a Devils Advocate

[abelcainsbrother]

No, this is the problem: instead of answering you point in all directions like a pinwhee, everyone
is being biased and dishonest. Everyone but you. "Fabrications", you say?

I did not say there are no transitional forms. That is one of your fabrications.

But never mind, wevare accustomed to that.

I asked a question. You did not answer.

Now, again, you say all fossils are of fully formed creatures. Fine-

So, do you think there should have been "not fully formed" creatures if ToE is true?
Yes or no please.

And if so, what would be the characteristics to show it is not fully formed?Lama


Yes,if evolution is true there should've been numerous transitional fossils found throughout the layers of strata,but they were not found as Darwin predicted,in other words there should be fossils showing clear transition between one kind of creature and another. Darwin was wrong and I think he knew it but he was trying to beat Lamarck to the punch when it comes to presenting evolution,he wanted the credit.If it had not been Charles Darwin,it would have been Lamarck that had pushed evolution. Darwin came up with a better theory to present evolution and it became very popular.

Could you just once skip the op ed?

You still did not answer.

Try again.

Do you think a "transitional" creature means "not fully formed"?

If so, where did you get such an idea? It is nowhere in literature ot science.

You still gave no drscription of what you think a "transitional" or "not fully formed"
creature would be like. Instead you point fingers. fabricate ill motives, etc.

Try again. Do you think "transitional" and "not fully formed" mean thd same?

Try to describe what a not fully formed creature would be like.

No editorials this time.

I answered you already,it doesn't bother you that Darwin was wrong? He is the main reason for the ToE so it should not be ignored. A transitional fossil would show clear transition between one kind of creature and another,so the fact they do not show transition is evidence against evolution. It cannot be both fully formed and transitional,you've just got that chart in your head and so you look at fossils as transitional fossils.It's not your fault though,you are just going on what you were taught and read in science books. I still say a former world,a lost world,different than this world makes the most sense when it comes to the fossils,they simply show the life that lived in that former world and it confirms the gap theory interpretation,that there was a gap between that world and this world,this is why it shows a different world than this world we now live in and biblically as you may know there is going to be another world in the future after this world.

That is not an answer ACB.

And Darwin was wrong on a number of things, but we know that already. Science isn't by the way, the method is self-correcting so it doesn't matter what you think or Darwin thought.

Science is not self-correcting like you claim,if they were they would not push theories as true science without evidence to back it up,like with evolution. They circle the wagons and defend evolution promoting it as true science when it is'nt even close to be proven. Scientists are not being honest about evolution because if they were they would admit it is not true science. You need to take the time on your own and look at the evidence yourself,if you don't believe me. I'm not anti-science I just expect good science. Go through the evidence yourself and see that the only think they have proven is the bible true when it tells us God created life to breed and produce after its kind. Look at the many examples of evidence in evolution science and see this demonstrated over and over whether it is micro or macro evolution. Like I have said before,it really has nothing at all to do with my faith in God that I reject evolution,I'd reject it even if I was an atheist. Do the research yourself if you don't believe me,you'll see.

[neo-x]

No, this is the problem: instead of answering you point in all directions like a pinwhee, everyone
is being biased and dishonest. Everyone but you. "Fabrications", you say?

I did not say there are no transitional forms. That is one of your fabrications.

But never mind, wevare accustomed to that.

I asked a question. You did not answer.

Now, again, you say all fossils are of fully formed creatures. Fine-

So, do you think there should have been "not fully formed" creatures if ToE is true?
Yes or no please.

And if so, what would be the characteristics to show it is not fully formed?Lama


Yes,if evolution is true there should've been numerous transitional fossils found throughout the layers of strata,but they were not found as Darwin predicted,in other words there should be fossils showing clear transition between one kind of creature and another. Darwin was wrong and I think he knew it but he was trying to beat Lamarck to the punch when it comes to presenting evolution,he wanted the credit.If it had not been Charles Darwin,it would have been Lamarck that had pushed evolution. Darwin came up with a better theory to present evolution and it became very popular.

Could you just once skip the op ed?

You still did not answer.

Try again.

Do you think a "transitional" creature means "not fully formed"?

If so, where did you get such an idea? It is nowhere in literature ot science.

You still gave no drscription of what you think a "transitional" or "not fully formed"
creature would be like. Instead you point fingers. fabricate ill motives, etc.

Try again. Do you think "transitional" and "not fully formed" mean thd same?

Try to describe what a not fully formed creature would be like.

No editorials this time.

I answered you already,it doesn't bother you that Darwin was wrong? He is the main reason for the ToE so it should not be ignored. A transitional fossil would show clear transition between one kind of creature and another,so the fact they do not show transition is evidence against evolution. It cannot be both fully formed and transitional,you've just got that chart in your head and so you look at fossils as transitional fossils.It's not your fault though,you are just going on what you were taught and read in science books. I still say a former world,a lost world,different than this world makes the most sense when it comes to the fossils,they simply show the life that lived in that former world and it confirms the gap theory interpretation,that there was a gap between that world and this world,this is why it shows a different world than this world we now live in and biblically as you may know there is going to be another world in the future after this world.

That is not an answer ACB.

And Darwin was wrong on a number of things, but we know that already. Science isn't by the way, the method is self-correcting so it doesn't matter what you think or Darwin thought.

Science is not self-correcting like you claim,if they were they would not push theories as true science without evidence to back it up,like with evolution. They circle the wagons and defend evolution promoting it as true science when it is'nt even close to be proven. Scientists are not being honest about evolution because if they were they would admit it is not true science. You need to take the time on your own and look at the evidence yourself,if you don't believe me. I'm not anti-science I just expect good science. Go through the evidence yourself and see that the only think they have proven is the bible true when it tells us God created life to breed and produce after its kind. Look at the many examples of evidence in evolution science and see this demonstrated over and over. Like I have said before,it really has nothing at all to do with my faith in God that I reject evolution,I'd reject it even if I was an atheist. Do the research yourself if you don't believe me,you'll see.

Funny, I took a couple of years to really dig into evolution and found out how true it was. I sincerely believe now that you reject evolution because you don't understand it...at all. I also think that you have never studied anything serious regarding evolution because your dismissals of it arise from common myths among anti/evolution circles. You never give a technical reason only from ignorance of the facts.

It's sad actually. You don't know what you are missing out.