Re: gaps (was: asa-digest V1 #3508)

From: Gary Collins (gwcollins@algol.co.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 03:54:12 EDT

  • Next message: EckertWAIII@aol.com: "Re: Bananas and other forbidden words."

    No, Michael, I'm no gappist and I'm sure Glenn isn't either. He and I were
    actually saying the same thing, it's just that I initially misinterpreted what
    Glenn was saying.

    To me it seems that the YECs and others who refuse to see gaps filled
    are falling into a form of Xeno's paradox.

    They seem to fail to understand the nature of the fossil record and place
    unreasonable demands on it. I read an article in Scientific American a few
    months back showing how the gap between land mammals and whales
    has been filled over the last decade or so. But I bet even that's not enough
    for the skeptics.

    It's rather like me presenting photographs of myself at (say) ages 5, 12, 18...
    and claiming that since there are no photos of ages in between these, that
    therefore I couldn't have developed gradually, my growth must have been
    discontinuous!

    /Gary

    On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:26:36 +0100, Michael Roberts wrote:

    >Be careful or else you will both become gappists. Gary is right ; the former
    >one gap becomes two of half the size.
    >
    >However the smaller the gap the more chance of evolution actually happening.
    >
    >If Gary wants to see what Brits say log on the discussion groups of Premier
    >Radio.
    >
    >It is the decreasing size of these gaps which is fatal to ID as if there is
    >nothing between a trilobite and a monkey then there has to be intervention.
    >If the biggest gap is between two horses one with 3 toes and one with one
    >and 2 which havent appeared then evolution makes sense.
    >
    >Time is important. If Morris and friends are right that the earth is 10,000
    >yrs old and everything appeared abruptly then there is no evolution, but if
    >it is spread out over 4.5 by with these decreasing gaps then evolution makes
    >best sense which is what Darwin argued in 1840. The refusal for IDers to
    >take Geol time into account is best disingeuous and worst a refusal to use
    >all evidence. It's only because they want to go to bed with creationists
    >that they do this. Definitley a date rape
    >
    >Regards
    >
    >Michael
    >
    >P.S. I am still only getting the better posts!!!



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 03:54:32 EDT