Questioning Darwin

[Lek]

Micro and Macro evolution are church-invented terms. No one in science uses them, you've been lied to.

"Cross species evolution" is also a church-invented term.

"MISCONCEPTION: Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.

CORRECTION: While it's true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory. Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we'd expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents. This expectation has been borne out. Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. Many organisms don't have any body parts that fossilize well, the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are rare, and of course, we've only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth. So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record. To learn more about testing scientific ideas, visit the Understanding Science website. To learn more about evolutionary transitions and the fossils that document them, visit our module on this topic."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...faq.php#e4

I didn't say that gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution. I said that they're compatible with progrerssive creationism. I do think they weaken the theory of evolution, because it could show that creatures are not continually evolving as many evolutionists believe. If macro and micro evolution aren't scientific vocabulary that's fine. There's an abundant fossil record showing evoluiton within particular species, but a very scarce record of creatures evolving from one species to a completely different species. I've seen the list of fossils said to be cross-overs. (Sorry, I used that term.) There's much dispute over them and it's my opinion that's it not sufficient for proof of that type of evolution. Also, if respected scientists are not evolutionists, I guess I should ignore them. I've come across your arguments before, including puncuated equalibrium, which relate to this discussion, but I want to look at the issue from all sides before I decide for myself.