Some Help from the Creationist

No, I asked you to show me the gab in the theory. Show me where the logic breaks down.You're suggesting that there are gaps in the theory, I'm asking what they are

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

Awesome. What are the age of these fossils according to carbon dating?
Exuse my ignorance.

I am not suggesting anything, there are just gaps in the fossil record. But that is expected, well thats the exuse everyone uses anyway. I just find it amusing with 18 million species on the planet, that we can't find these transitional species. So to me it is missing evidence. It is not what is making me believe in the TOE or not. The TOE could be true to me, it wouldn't matter, or effect my belief in God.But people who do believe in the TOE, or accept it, even with missing evidence, will not accept the idea that a flood happened, based on the missing evidence. Hypocritical to me. But my thoughts on this are not qualified thoughts, so take them with a grain of salt.

So defensive.It's not about what a theory is or isn't, it's about believing in one. On paper no scientist would ever admit to believing in one, because then they really wouldn't be a scientist would they? But I have spoke with scientist, or educated medical personnel, and they believe in it, and use the TOE to not believe in God.Just like you, with all the knowledge you possess, you have no choice but to not believe in God. I call that, being close-minded.I think you have a great gift of discernment, one given to you by God. It's a shame you don't use it for God's glory, instead of your own.

But those are not gaps in ToE. The theory does not depend on the fossil record. There is more than enough evidence, even if there were no fossils. That I do not accept the flood story has nothing to do with missing evidence. The flood story is preposterous, absurd. It contradicts ordinary common sense.

You can't carbon date a fossil. There is no once-living carbon left in it. Also any Carbon you find there will have entirely decayed to C12 indicating an age > 50,000 years. Beyond that it will tell you nothing.

There is an astronomically huge difference between the two concepts.The ToE is a theory based on many many different lines of evidence that all point inerrantly to a single conclusion. The fossil record is just one of them.The Flood has, one and only one, source which leads anyone to believe in it. The Bible. No outside source of evidence has ever confirmed the story or even hinted that it could be remotely possible. The fact is that every jot of evidence ever discovered, totally disproves it.
The flood is totally inconsistent with ALL physical evidence.

I call it facing up to reality.
Closed minded is when you don't look at all the facts in order to reach your conclusions.

We're not talking about evidence or fossil record. We are talking about the logic of the theory. You were suggesting that there were gaps in the theory itself.For example - a few of the gaps in the theory of Intelligent DesignWho is the designer?
What mechanism is used for design?So, can you either point out the gaps in ToE or can you answer the gaps in ID? Either is fine

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?

Dude, carbon dating only dates things that are young, relatively. There are other methods of dating really old fossils. There are many ways to date the fossils. Here are a few methods: radiometric, fission track, superposition, paleomagnetic, etc. That's just a small list. The kicker is they all seem to agree with each other within an acceptable margin of error.So, how do creationists date things?

So does loving your enemys.

Thank you for your thoughts. We never stop learning the facts.If you spend 8 years in college learning TOE from professors who don't believe in God, then spend one semester taking Theology from another professor who doesn't believe in God, what are you left to believe?It's ok though, we need this to get rid of religious supression, and opression, from all the religious traditions of man, so that the light may shine, and the truth be known.

Yes.Don't forget, Evolution is both fact and theory. We just can't find those millions of transitional fossils.