abelcainsbrother wrote:You just doubt the Gap Theory will be more believable,that is all.But you have probably never seen a debate between a Gap Theorist and somebody who believes the theory of evolution ...
True, I haven't, so I thought I'd look one up, but YouTube doesn't seem to have any. It seems that the most vociferous of the opponents of Gap Theory are other biblical literalists.
... but once the evidence is laid out the Gap Theory is more believable and the Gap Theorists wins the debate based on the evidence ...
No. There isn't any evidence. We keep asking you for some and all you do is ask questions or make unsubstantiated assertions.
... and fossils is just one area of evidence I usually bring up but fossils alone are evidence for a former world totally different than this world,with different kinds of life that lived in it,but there is more evidence.
There is no dispute that the earth millions of years ago was very different from modern earth. That is not Gap Theory. The dispute is about the possibility of the instantaneous destruction of one world and its instantaneous replacement by a different one. For which there is no evidence.
Also fossils were not an important part of the formulation of evolution which is why Charles Darwin admitted there were no transitional fossils,but predicted they would be found ...
This is factually incorrect. The emergence of geology, and the discovery of fossils within stratigraphic layers had generated evolutionary ideas long before On The Origin Of Species, and Darwin uses fossils to help support his argument throughout. A good example plucked more or less at random is:
"Let us now look to the mutual affinities of extinct and living species. They all fall into one grand natural system; and this fact is at once explained on the principle of descent. The more ancient any form is, the more, as a general rule, it differs from living forms. But, as Buckland long ago remarked, all fossils can be classed either in still existing groups,
or between them. That the extinct forms of life help to
fill up the wide intervals between existing genera, families, and orders, cannot be disputed. For if we confine our attention either to the living or to the extinct alone, the series is far less perfect than if we combine both into one general system. With respect to the Vertebrata, whole pages could be filled with striking illustrations from our great palæontologist, Owen, showing how
extinct animals fall in between existing groups. Cuvier ranked the Ruminants and Pachyderms, as the two most distinct orders of mammals; but Owen has discovered
so many fossil links, that he has had to alter the whole classification of these two orders; and has placed certain pachyderms in the same sub-order with ruminants: for example,
he dissolves by fine gradations the apparently wide difference between the pig and the camel." [Emphasis mine]
... but they never were,instead the fossils were just put together to make them look like transitional fossils.
Unless you are accusing paleontologists of devising endless numbers of Piltdown-style chimera, this is meaningless, and if you are so accusing them, it is untrue.
But it makes no different because a former lost world is more believable,still.
Not to me, it isn't.
