Whatever-of-the-gaps?

[Ovedya]

If they weren't on the ark, they're gone, no? The flood killed everything.

I never argued that they were one the ark. I never argued that men and dinos co-existed either.

T-Rex's, Tricerotops, Bronto's and the like are big enough where they would be found by now. Are relatives around? Sure. Monitors and croc are pretty ancient looking, but light by about 100 tons.

Aligators too. So? They're not dinosaurs.

Well I have only been here a short time, yet I've had my faith challenged because I believe in evolution. So that I can narrow it down, which school are you from? Are dinosaur's here? Did they get on the ark? Could the ark hold two of every specis that is alive now?

I believe the Bible. I also hold to a minority view that there was a pre-Adamic creation.

No. I'm asserting the ark couldn't hold everything, not even a fraction. Now I'll follow your lead, dinosaurs or no dinosaurs, let me know. Doesn't matter, but what do you think, so that I don't put words in your mouth.

There were no dinosaurs on the ark.

A fact? I'm reading what the bible says. In fact, I think the word that was often used is translated as dragon. Why do you get to interpret the bible, but I don't?

Interpret away! The bible was translated into English for just that reason. Doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct, however. Doesn't mean that all interpretations are corect either, for that matter.

Indeed there are exceptions. But there is nothing at all to indicate that such a foot print would exist. You don't find human fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs, the evolutionary rate does not place them there, archeology does not place them there, there is no objective measurement that puts them there. There is no question data to the contrary would be incredible, but it is unlikely to come. The few reports of footprints and the like have been thoroughly debunked.

Yeah, and science refuses to accept the fact that coal and crude oil can be made under certain conditions in a matter days, rather than millions of years as they insist. There are examples of the same quality oil having been created under certain conditions in a short period of time, found within the same strata as rocks and fossils supposedly millions of years old.

I would also apply your quote to gaps in the fossil record that creationists note. Apparently your adage is not acceptable under those circumstances.

Frankly I don't care what some creationists claim. I know that God created the heavens and the earth. Human beings didn't evolve from some apelike creature. And God didn't order his creation so that we did evolve from some apelike creature. There are many, many holes in evolutionary theory that scientists refuse to acknowledge and, in fact, the evolutionary model pollutes most, if not all, of the scientific fields, so that objectivity is nearly impossible. THAT is contrary to the scientific process.

[Ovedya]

There's really been no significant new evolutionary research either. As I wrote before, the evolutionary model pollutes all areas od science so that there can be no objectivity in testing new theories or hypotheses. As to faith: It takes more faith to believe that elements spontaneously popped into being, collided together, exploded, created new elements, bonded together, formed a planetary body and gave birth to living organisms which evolved into beings which invented a theory that elements spontaneously popped into being, collided together, exploded, created new elements, bonded together, formed a planetary body and gave birth to living organisms which evolved into beings which invented a theory that elements spontaneously popped into being....

[Ovedya]

There's really been no significant new evolutionary research either.

I don't know how to respond to that one. Go to medline, and read the published papers every day. We learn something new as fast as you can read. Go to any genome sequencing center and you'll learn something. If you want to.

As I wrote before, the evolutionary model pollutes all areas od science so that there can be no objectivity in testing new theories or hypotheses.

There is nothing that prevents anybody from publishing anything. I was going to add "if it is credible", but in reality, that's false as well. You can find scientific journals that do not even have peer review. Type it up, format it, send it in. There is nothing preventing the creation institute from starting their own journal. You don't even need a journal, just post something. Your claim is not true at all. As I said, creationists don't bother because they cannot produce anything that is holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

That is not true at all. There are plenty of perfectly credible scientists that promote creation. The fact of the matter is that, because the evolutionary model pervades most, if not all, of the medical sciences, creationism is summarily dismissed. I once watched a program on PBS about this, two archaeologists were attempting to discover facts as they see them without looking through "the lens of evolutionary theory." Not only did they find this extremely difficult due to their indoctrination, but they were criticized and ridiculed by their peers for even attempting to do so. When scientists refuse to observe phenomena objectively and without preconceptions with regard to their source or origin, then they fail in the most elemental aspect of the scientific process.

[Ovedya]

That is not true at all. There are plenty of perfectly credible scientists that promote creation. The fact of the matter is that, because the evolutionary model pervades most, if not all, of the medical sciences, creationism is summarily dismissed. I once watched a program on PBS about this, two archaeologists were attempting to discover facts as they see them without looking through "the lens of evolutionary theory." Not only did they find this extremely difficult due to their indoctrination, but they were criticized and ridiculed by their peers for even attempting to do so. When scientists refuse to observe phenomena objectively and without preconceptions with regard to their source or origin, then they fail in the most elemental aspect of the scientific process.

I can't really say it any differently. So I'll put it in a question. Is there anything preventing a creationist from reporting an experiment, opinion, hypothesis, theory, etc?

I think you are mixing up reporting with acceptance. If there were anything at all to creation that was verifyable, somebody would study it. We all want to be famous and I can tell you, as one doing funded research, we are all doing the next big thing. To assume that someone would not prove evolution false if it were doable is crazy. Even a major change in evolutionary paradigm would be seized on by anyone who could prove it in a repeatable way. Scientists have all human characteristics, including vanity and greed. They would jump on the opportunity to be famous in a heart beat. It just isn't there.

That's a presumption on your part. Prove it.

I would love to see some credible evidence for, "If it were possible then it would be so."