For some reason you and I don't mix well, we pass each other all the
time.
> Tell me about them [new theories]? What do they hypothesize?
Well Gould thinks darwinian gradualism did not happen and he postulates
punctuated equilibria, Behe believes that there are some irreducible
complex structures/functions that indicate a designer without discarding
subsequent evolution, other believe that the gaps in the fossil record
are the result of a "forest" type creation without discarding subsequent
bounded evolution, and you know what YEC believe.
> What does this get us?
My point was that there are new theories coming up all the time.
Although the purely naturalistic darwinian paradigm is the most accepted
it does have problems, in fact new problems seem to appear everyday.
> Absolutely not. I am going to spend eternity with you the atheist won't. So
> we are not at all in the same wagon.
Here is a good example of what I meant in my opening statement. I meant
the wagon of evolutionary theories, not the wagon of christian faith.
> I would say that evolution is more generally accepted than you are
> indicating here.
Yes, naturalistic evolution, NOT theistic evolution.
> and indeed this statement contradicts what you said the
> other day about being outgunned. If AE is not generally accepted, then why
> are you complaining that there are so few scientists working on the creation
> solutions?
Sorry, I meant "not accepted by all scientists".
> you too have a good weekend.
I did, thanks
Eduardo.