l-bow

randman,

I notice in another thread that you said that you accept ID. If so, then I presume you think that an intelligence designed all those separate species that PE is supposed to account for.

You do think those gaps in the fossil record, that occur between species, invalidate evolution, right?

Or, do you actually have no problem with the idea that a specie can evolve quickly, geologically speaking, into another? Because you already said you accept "speciation within a kind". And therefore this stuff about PE invalidating evolution is a bunch of baloney. (If those gaps are genuine, then it should follow that evolution of one specie to another specie, within a kind, is impossible.)


[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

randman

"I notice in another thread that you said that you accept ID. If so, then I presume you think that an intelligence designed all those separate species that PE is supposed to account for."

ID includes theistic evolutionists by the way so the basis of your presumption is wrong, but I am not a theistic evolutionist. I do beleive in special creation by God. I used to be a theistic evolutionist until I looked more deeply into what I was taught concerning evolution.

"You do think those gaps in the fossil record, that occur between species, invalidate evolution, right?"

I guess you could say yes here.

"And therefore this stuff about PE invalidating evolution is a bunch of baloney."

PE in itself does not invalidate evolution. It is actually an attempt to reconcile evolution with the data.

" (If those gaps are genuine, then it should follow that evolution of one specie to another specie, within a kind, is impossible.)"

No, but it does make the idea of speciation within a kind more speculative. Nonetheless, there are a very few, like the Welsh trilobites, examples of speciation within a kind.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

l-bow

randman,

Do you know that you've contradicted yourself. First, you say the gaps between species invalidate evolution. Then you turn around and say species-to-species evolution, within a kind, is permitted. Which is it? The gaps between species invalidate evolution? Or the gaps between species don't invalidate evolution? You can't have it both ways.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

l-bow

randman,

Please tell how PE invalidates the idea of evolution outside of a kind. (especially when PE only deals with variation between two species, within a kind)