Evidence for theistic evolution

[abelcainsbrother]

Peter didn't say Noah's flood then later say it was not Noah's flood. He said it was Noah's flood then he explained more about Noah's flood. But if you wont to believe in the gap theory go ahead but that isn't proof of gap theory.

I also already new that people believed that horses had three toes that doesn't disprove what I am saying I am not sure when evolutionist believe they became hoofs but I'm pretty sure it was way before 5000 years ago but I might be wrong. I do not study evolution its a waste of time even the author of it said thing do not evolve yes Darwin him self said after close observation he discovered that thing do not evolve.

When someone says that evolution is the best theory that just aggravates me because it isn't the best. It is the best with out God maybe but not the best well maybe best theory but not best fact. Best fact is God creating the world.

how can something coming from nothing or no known reason be better reasoning then every thing coming from God

Both require a believe in some thing incredible to happen but it is much easier to believe that someone created something than to believe that things just started happening on it on.

I think it is proof of the gap theory and I don't have to ignore the detail of the text to know it cannot be talking about Noah's flood and I don't see how you can make Noah's flood fit into 2nd Peter 3:5-7 with a good Holy spirit conscience as for evolution the gap theory proves it wrong,so it was wrong before I ever looked into the scientific evidence for evolution.I just didn't realize it until I accepted the gap theory. I would like you to explain how you can still make Noah's flood fit into 2nd Peter 3:5-7 though because I don't see how you can if you "Let God be true and every man a liar." It took me awhile to accept it but I'm glad I did and I have a much better understanding of the bible because of it too that YEC's seem to skim over like Lucifer's history,angels,demons,etc. You do not have very good teaching on these things in YEC.

[jpbg33]

I'm glade you do not believe in evolution but that verse is talking about Noah's flood. the chapter starts off by talking about how people are going around saying that where is the coming of God. God isn't coming back look everything is going on as it always has from creation. then it stats that they are ignoring the fact that God has already destroyed the world with water which is what happened in Noah's flood but they are ignoring that and the next judgment on earth will be of fire.

Not only that but it say the earth that is now is being preserved to be destroyed by fire next time that it is destroyed. So we know that the earth was destroyed once at the time of Noah by a flood but if what you are saying is right then there would not have been a flood in Noah's time Because it was being preserved from creation to be destroyed by fire not water.

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm glade you do not believe in evolution but that verse is talking about Noah's flood. the chapter starts off by talking about how people are going around saying that where is the coming of God. God isn't coming back look everything is going on as it always has from creation. then it stats that they are ignoring the fact that God has already destroyed the world with water which is what happened in Noah's flood but they are ignoring that and the next judgment on earth will be of fire.

Not only that but it say the earth that is now is being preserved to be destroyed by fire next time that it is destroyed. So we know that the earth was destroyed once at the time of Noah by a flood but if what you are saying is right then there would not have been a flood in Noah's time Because it was being preserved from creation to be destroyed by fire not water.

Nobody is ignoring Noah's flood they are ignoring and ignorant about Lucifer's flood.Gap theorists do not reject Noah's flood so you don't have to try to prove it to me.You are making Noah's flood fit into it when only the earth was effected in Noah's flood and you must in order to hold on to a young earth interpretation but this is describing a much,much worse flood than Noah's flood in which both the heavens and earth was flooded with water causing the former world to perish,this is what is being ignored not Noah's flood.Atheists know all about Noah's flood and deny it but they are ignorant of Lucifer's flood and so are a lot of Christians. Why must you cling to a young earth view? Is it AIG evidence that you accept? But would have to let go of?

[jpbg33]

lucifer's flood there was no lucifer's flood. lucifer was a angel that fell from heaven with a third of the angels. he was not a man never was he was an angel. were do you get that the heavens were flooded. The bible say the windows of heaven were open and that water fell from the sky but doesn't mean that there was a flood in heaven and any ways that happened at the time of Noah's flood.

[abelcainsbrother]

lucifer's flood there was no lucifer's flood. lucifer was a angel that fell from heaven with a third of the angels. he was not a man never was he was an angel. were do you get that the heavens were flooded. The bible say the windows of heaven were open and that water fell from the sky but doesn't mean that there was a flood in heaven and any ways that happened at the time of Noah's flood.

I know Lucifer was an angel and he ruled over the former world and when he and a third of the angels rebelled severe judgment was poured out you can read Isaiah 14:12 and know he ruled over nations "did weaken the nations" and it was on this earth or else how could he ascend to heaven ?and yes the heavens and the earth that were of old were flooded.It says it in 2nd Peter 3:5-6 that both the heavens and the earth that were of old were flooded,opening the windows of heaven does not mean the heavens were flooded,windows of heaven were clouds that rained on the earth but even still only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood not both the heavens and earth that were of old,even if you think the rain came from heaven,it doesn't change that only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood.

[Proinsias]

Interestingly the biochemist professor, Michael Behe accepts most of evolutionary theory,
and so it's interesting that an attack was made on him in this thread another similar thread.

Shows the true colour of the debate is philosophical and not science.

I'm not exactly a lone wolf on the issue of Behe's claims of scientific theory. From his page:

My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.

It's not just the scientific community and the people he works with, his arguments didn't hold up in court either. The philosophy I can appreciate, we are concious and intelligent and therefore are the product of intelligent conciousness sort of thing. I just find Behe's claims rather thin, he tends towards explaining how things couldn't possibly have happened within the current framework of molecular biology or whatnot and offers an unspecified intelligence as a solution. It doesn't do much to advance science and doesn't add anything new to philosophy. If it's the underlying conciousness and intelligence of all being or the demiurge then it's not particularly relevant to biology and if it's aliens it'll be relevant when we find them.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Proinsias,
What aren't you a lone wolf on... it's unclear to me what issues you are having with Behe.
Maybe if you did out something specific?

[Proinsias]

Irreducible complexity

[Kurieuo]

Irreducible complexity

What specifically i.e., the idea or examples?

[abelcainsbrother]

What does holding up in court have to do with it? All evolutionists did was put big pile of so-called evidence for evolution on the table,too bad nobody could go through it and point out the lack of real evidence life evolves.

[Proinsias]

both

[Kurieuo]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

[abelcainsbrother]

No there is'nt.

[Proinsias]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

Not that I'm aware of.

[Kurieuo]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ok, that's what Behe defines as an "irreducibly complex" system.
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the idea myself.

Have you read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box?