[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
The problem is of course that the Creationist position has been collapsing ever since Darwin proposed Evolution. As more and more evidence is uncovered the evolutionary patterns become more and more pronounced. The main Creationist arguments against evolution have always been based on the current lack of knowledge in science and they use this lack of knowledge to make out that the Theory of Evolution is some sort of guess.

For example decades ago (and continuing recently unfortunately) Creationists would hold up the cambrian explosion as a severe blow for evolution and confirmation of their own theory. As you probably know the Cambrian explosion marks a sudden appearance of hard shelled sea creatures about 550 million years ago. Evolutionary biologists always knew there would be pre-cambrian fossils, probably soft shelled hence the lack of fossilisation. The theory demanded there must be pre-cambrian fossils and it was hard to see how else it could be. But none could be found. Creationists of course paraded this around as a falsification of evolution, and some still do.
However now, a few decades later, there are now many pre-cambrian fossils which are ancesteral forms to many of the cambrian fossils.

As more time passes, more fossils are found and the gaps are disapearing. In 100 years time we will have millions more fossils, much better understanding of genetics and maybe a few class discoveries. Creationism will continue to crumble.

I don't know what the final death knell will be but I doubt it will happen with one bold discovery. More likely as more and more fossil transitionals are amassed, it will become just too difficult for Creationists

The funny thing is that as soon as this happens the new generation of Biblical literalists will suddenly "find" half a dozen bible verses that show the Bible actually predicted evolution. We will then have them all lining up saying "look the bible is proof of God, how else would it have predicted evolution 2000 years in advance of darwin?"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You have not been paying attention have you? We all agree when what happened. There is no argument (except from creationists that are inadequetly educated on the history of biblical texts, and of course, radio-chemistry) that There was not a cambrien explosion or that there was not life before then.

The gaps are irrelevant. No matter how small the gaps are, they will still not be close enough to actually prove evolution. Make it less improbable? Sure. Prove it? No.

For the record, I am the first to admit that many in my religeon are completely ignorant, and have no idea WTF they are talking about when it comes to natural history, or what God actually said, especiall the "Jehova's" (sic) witnesses, as I tell them "Jehova? Yall is mispronuncin Yahweh, so why don't yall make ya way the f*ck off my front porch." I have not, and will not defend idiotic theory that suggests the earth was created in a week. But I will not accept as fact something as improbable and completely non provable as evolution, when creation by a supreme being over a long period of time is no more improbable, and no more impossible to prove, since I don't see degrees of impossibility.

Stop insulting my intellegence by using arguments that only poke holes in six day creationism, when I was the first one to point out that it is absurd. And quit refering to something as proof when it clearly is not. And one last thing: Don't assume we will find more fossils because you know what assuming does.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Bugs

I hope I have been rational in my debate. We have a miscommunication as to what is meant by how the history of existence should be taught, but other than that we can learn from each other. I try to deal rationally with everyone even the hard core 'Creation Science ' believers.

There is an interesting point that needs to be explored further in terms of what is a 'proof', 'when is something proven', and what are the different ways 'theory' is used in science.