Finally Picked a creation stance.

[1over137]

Abel, I added new option under the crearion position in the user profile. You can now pick Gap Theory there.

Thanks,I'll try to change it.

Thank Rick who suggested that

[RickD]

Let me say,that I respect all creation interpretations but IMO the gap theory is true biblically first but is the only one that can defeat evolution if the church taught it, but they won't .

The "church" doesn't teach the Gap Theory, because it has no hermeneutical leg to stand on.

One must twist the OT Hebrew, in order to get Gap Theory theology out of scripture.

[RickD]

Let me say,that I respect all creation interpretations but IMO the gap theory is true biblically first but is the only one that can defeat evolution if the church taught it, but they won't .

The problem with this statement is that if evolution is going to be "defeated", it will be scientifically, as new evidence comes out. I wouldn't worry about trying to defeat evolution. Whatever happens to be wrong about the ToE, if anything, will be made clearer as science advances.

ACB,

Your saying that the Gap Theory is the only creation stance that can defeat evolution, would be true IF the Gap Theory was proven to be true FIRST.

Since that's not anywhere near close to happening at this time, the Gap Theory isn't going to "defeat" evolution any time soon.

The problem with your assertion lies in being able to prove the Gap Theory true, scientifically, and theologically.

[abelcainsbrother]

Let me say,that I respect all creation interpretations but IMO the gap theory is true biblically first but is the only one that can defeat evolution if the church taught it, but they won't .

The problem with this statement is that if evolution is going to be "defeated", it will be scientifically, as new evidence comes out. I wouldn't worry about trying to defeat evolution. Whatever happens to be wrong about the ToE, if anything, will be made clearer as science advances.

ACB,

Your saying that the Gap Theory is the only creation stance that can defeat evolution, would be true IF the Gap Theory was proven to be true FIRST.

Since that's not anywhere near close to happening at this time, the Gap Theory isn't going to "defeat" evolution any time soon.

The problem with your assertion lies in being able to prove the Gap Theory true, scientifically, and theologically.

I kinda agree,but I think we are all into apologetics and as we know we she debates all the time between creationinsts and evolutionists and none of them can beat evolution and some like ID don't even really deal with evolution and so evolution lives on without being effected.So why does evolution get a pass? If evolution cannot be demonstrated then it might be wrong and it keeps a lot of people away from God.When I see these debates I know evolution could be defeated if the Chistiian was presenting the gap theory,yet evolution gets a pass.

Also it is important to know a former world existed and we don't know about it because of evolution.I believe there is evidence to confirm it,but there are certain things that would be hard to show right now,but every creation interpretation has its problems or issues and. The gap theory does too,this does no make it untrue. More can be revealed in time.Gap theorists have certain issues with trying to defend two floods.

[abelcainsbrother]

Let me say,that I respect all creation interpretations but IMO the gap theory is true biblically first but is the only one that can defeat evolution if the church taught it, but they won't .

The "church" doesn't teach the Gap Theory, because it has no hermeneutical leg to stand on.

One must twist the OT Hebrew, in order to get Gap Theory theology out of scripture.

It is the opposite ,the only Hebrew word gap theorists have tried to make a case for is that in Genesis 1:2 " was" can be translated became instead,but even if a person disagrees with this it clearly says in Genesis 1 that God made animals,etc " after their kind" or after its kind" but then God tells Noah and his family to " replenish" the earth andtoldAdam and Eve to replenish the earth too,and it is the same Hebrew word. So we have evidence because God made the animals,etc in this world after the life that was in the former world,and we have fossils millions of years old to back it up.

We do not have to mess with the Hebrew to stretch out the days to be long periods of time that still has problems making the science fit,as the timing is off for now. Plus we are not reading it as poetry,and the scientific evidence fits the gap theory without having to do these kinds of things.

[RickD]

Let me say,that I respect all creation interpretations but IMO the gap theory is true biblically first but is the only one that can defeat evolution if the church taught it, but they won't .

The "church" doesn't teach the Gap Theory, because it has no hermeneutical leg to stand on.

One must twist the OT Hebrew, in order to get Gap Theory theology out of scripture.

It is the opposite ,the only Hebrew word gap theorists have tried to make a case for is that in Genesis 1:2 " was" can be translated became instead,but even if a person disagrees with this it clearly says in Genesis 1 that God made animals,etc " after their kind" or after its kind" but then God tells Noah and his family to " replenish" the earth andtoldAdam and Eve to replenish the earth too,and it is the same Hebrew word. So we have evidence because God made the animals,etc in this world after the life that was in the former world,and we have fossils millions of years old to back it up.

We do not have to mess with the Hebrew to stretch out the days to be long periods of time that still has problems making the science fit,as the timing is off for now. Plus we are not reading it as poetry,and the scientific evidence fits the gap theory without having to do these kinds of things.

God telling Adam, then Noah to replenish the earth, doesn't prove the Gap theory. Even if you want to say replenish means refill, it doesn't do anything to prove the GT. It's pretty clear that dinosaurs lived, filled the earth, and went extinct long before Adam arrived. So, if you want to say replenish means refill, it could just mean refill with human life, after prehistoric life went extinct.
And again, fossils being millions of years old just shows that the fossils are millions of years old. It doesn't prove the GT.
I know you reeeely want to find something that disproves the ToE, but the GT ain't gonna do it.

[abelcainsbrother]

Let me say,that I respect all creation interpretations but IMO the gap theory is true biblically first but is the only one that can defeat evolution if the church taught it, but they won't .

The "church" doesn't teach the Gap Theory, because it has no hermeneutical leg to stand on.

One must twist the OT Hebrew, in order to get Gap Theory theology out of scripture.

It is the opposite ,the only Hebrew word gap theorists have tried to make a case for is that in Genesis 1:2 " was" can be translated became instead,but even if a person disagrees with this it clearly says in Genesis 1 that God made animals,etc " after their kind" or after its kind" but then God tells Noah and his family to " replenish" the earth andtoldAdam and Eve to replenish the earth too,and it is the same Hebrew word. So we have evidence because God made the animals,etc in this world after the life that was in the former world,and we have fossils millions of years old to back it up.

We do not have to mess with the Hebrew to stretch out the days to be long periods of time that still has problems making the science fit,as the timing is off for now. Plus we are not reading it as poetry,and the scientific evidence fits the gap theory without having to do these kinds of things.

God telling Adam, then Noah to replenish the earth, doesn't prove the Gap theory. Even if you want to say replenish means refill, it doesn't do anything to prove the GT. It's pretty clear that dinosaurs lived, filled the earth, and went extinct long before Adam arrived. So, if you want to say replenish means refill, it could just mean refill with human life, after prehistoric life went extinct.
And again, fossils being millions of years old just shows that the fossils are millions of years old. It doesn't prove the GT.
I know you reeeely want to find something that disproves the ToE, but the GT ain't gonna do it.

All I'm doing is trying to explain why the gap theory is the right one compared to the other interpretations out there. Also I can't prove it but gap theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates in Universities in the 1980's so I do think it would be just as effective in these big debates we've seen where evolution is not effected.

[RickD]

Let me say,that I respect all creation interpretations but IMO the gap theory is true biblically first but is the only one that can defeat evolution if the church taught it, but they won't .

The "church" doesn't teach the Gap Theory, because it has no hermeneutical leg to stand on.

One must twist the OT Hebrew, in order to get Gap Theory theology out of scripture.

It is the opposite ,the only Hebrew word gap theorists have tried to make a case for is that in Genesis 1:2 " was" can be translated became instead,but even if a person disagrees with this it clearly says in Genesis 1 that God made animals,etc " after their kind" or after its kind" but then God tells Noah and his family to " replenish" the earth andtoldAdam and Eve to replenish the earth too,and it is the same Hebrew word. So we have evidence because God made the animals,etc in this world after the life that was in the former world,and we have fossils millions of years old to back it up.

We do not have to mess with the Hebrew to stretch out the days to be long periods of time that still has problems making the science fit,as the timing is off for now. Plus we are not reading it as poetry,and the scientific evidence fits the gap theory without having to do these kinds of things.

God telling Adam, then Noah to replenish the earth, doesn't prove the Gap theory. Even if you want to say replenish means refill, it doesn't do anything to prove the GT. It's pretty clear that dinosaurs lived, filled the earth, and went extinct long before Adam arrived. So, if you want to say replenish means refill, it could just mean refill with human life, after prehistoric life went extinct.
And again, fossils being millions of years old just shows that the fossils are millions of years old. It doesn't prove the GT.
I know you reeeely want to find something that disproves the ToE, but the GT ain't gonna do it.

All I'm doing is trying to explain why the gap theory is the right one compared to the other interpretations out there. Also I can't prove it but gap theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates in Universities in the 1980's so I do think it would be just as effective in these big debates we've seen where evolution is not effected.

By chance, do you have any links to videos, or at least, transcripts of those debates? I'd like to hear one.

[abelcainsbrother]

Let me say,that I respect all creation interpretations but IMO the gap theory is true biblically first but is the only one that can defeat evolution if the church taught it, but they won't .

The "church" doesn't teach the Gap Theory, because it has no hermeneutical leg to stand on.

One must twist the OT Hebrew, in order to get Gap Theory theology out of scripture.

It is the opposite ,the only Hebrew word gap theorists have tried to make a case for is that in Genesis 1:2 " was" can be translated became instead,but even if a person disagrees with this it clearly says in Genesis 1 that God made animals,etc " after their kind" or after its kind" but then God tells Noah and his family to " replenish" the earth andtoldAdam and Eve to replenish the earth too,and it is the same Hebrew word. So we have evidence because God made the animals,etc in this world after the life that was in the former world,and we have fossils millions of years old to back it up.

We do not have to mess with the Hebrew to stretch out the days to be long periods of time that still has problems making the science fit,as the timing is off for now. Plus we are not reading it as poetry,and the scientific evidence fits the gap theory without having to do these kinds of things.

God telling Adam, then Noah to replenish the earth, doesn't prove the Gap theory. Even if you want to say replenish means refill, it doesn't do anything to prove the GT. It's pretty clear that dinosaurs lived, filled the earth, and went extinct long before Adam arrived. So, if you want to say replenish means refill, it could just mean refill with human life, after prehistoric life went extinct.
And again, fossils being millions of years old just shows that the fossils are millions of years old. It doesn't prove the GT.
I know you reeeely want to find something that disproves the ToE, but the GT ain't gonna do it.

All I'm doing is trying to explain why the gap theory is the right one compared to the other interpretations out there. Also I can't prove it but gap theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates in Universities in the 1980's so I do think it would be just as effective in these big debates we've seen where evolution is not effected.

By chance, do you have any links to videos, or at least, transcripts of those debates? I'd like to hear one.

No,this is why I say I can't prove it.I have been looking but I have'nt found any way to prove it.I'm basing it on an interview I heard somewhere but I believe it.If I ever find anything I'll try to let you know.1980's was a while back.

Sure. But if gap theorists were defeating evolutionists like you say, there should be a record of it somewhere.

[abelcainsbrother]

I do really like to try to makes case for why I think the gap theory is the right interpretation but I don't like attacking other interpretations but I must to make a case.I just hope we can not take it personal,like I'm attacking somebody personally. Don't take it that way,just try to compare honestly and let the chips fall where they may. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ trying to figure out what's right and what's wrong. So don't take it personally. This is not about dividing us and I don't want that. But I do not care about being popular,I only strive to be right biblically even if I'm in the minority.God's word and evidence will change m miind and nobody has a 100% authority on their interpretation and I actually find truth in every creation interpretation.

[RickD]

Sure. And I hope you don't take it personally when I say that there's no biblical justification for the Gap Theory.

[abelcainsbrother]

Sure. And I hope you don't take it personally when I say that there's no biblical justification for the Gap Theory.

OK then when God made animals,insects, etc why did he make them " after their kind"? Because this means something and t makes sense that God made them after the kind of life that was in the former world. It is not saying I made them the way I chose to,etc it is saying I made them after their kind?

Also In Genesis 1:2 the earth is flooded it does'nt say ITT but based on God hovering over the waters,it is flooded,which is why on day 2 he removes water off of the earth. This totally lines up with 2nd Peter 3:5-6 becauseGod did not form the earth out of water in Noah's flood, also this world did not perish in Noah's flood, it came close but God spared this world and kept it going by Noah and so that Jesus would be born like God said in Genesis 3:15.

If somebody can honestly explain biblically why this is wrong,you might change my mind. But I don't want just denial or a made up excuse to explain it away.
This is the way you try to show how the gap theory is wrong'NOT by bringing up Hebrew,etc.

These are things the gap theory is built on mostly but also more biblical reasons.

[neo-x]

It is time to pull out the big guns church and stop playing patty-cake with evolution. Just this right here would do serious damage to evolution even if we did not get into any other evidence for the Gap theory,this alone in front of an audience - creationism vs evolution would make the evolutionist look silly. If life truly evolves like they believe they would be forced to demonstrate it does or lose support.

Hi Acb, just as a thought on what you wrote, could you demonstrate, in front of an audience, the act of creation?

I would not have to do that to defeat evolution.All I would have to do is provide evidence that shows a former world existed on this earth like the bible reveals and tells us then point out that not one scientist has ever demonstrated or showed us life evolves and point out the evidence used as evidence by scientists only demonstrates what plant and animal breeders were aware of thousands of years before Charles Darwin that life can adapt or that there is variation in reproduction,and explain this is not evidence life evolves,but is common knowledge yet they call this micro evolution.

But this is not what you said earlier. You claimed that you'd ask an evolutionist to "Demonstrate" evolution and that will be your "smoking gun" so to say. But you are, yourself excluded from such criteria?

[abelcainsbrother]

It is time to pull out the big guns church and stop playing patty-cake with evolution. Just this right here would do serious damage to evolution even if we did not get into any other evidence for the Gap theory,this alone in front of an audience - creationism vs evolution would make the evolutionist look silly. If life truly evolves like they believe they would be forced to demonstrate it does or lose support.

Hi Acb, just as a thought on what you wrote, could you demonstrate, in front of an audience, the act of creation?

I would not have to do that to defeat evolution.All I would have to do is provide evidence that shows a former world existed on this earth like the bible reveals and tells us then point out that not one scientist has ever demonstrated or showed us life evolves and point out the evidence used as evidence by scientists only demonstrates what plant and animal breeders were aware of thousands of years before Charles Darwin that life can adapt or that there is variation in reproduction,and explain this is not evidence life evolves,but is common knowledge yet they call this micro evolution.

But this is not what you said earlier. You claimed that you'd ask an evolutionist to "Demonstrate" evolution and that will be your "smoking gun" so to say. But you are, yourself excluded from such criteria?

Yes,I would because of how evolution is believed and taught as scientific truth. Neo, I have actually tested that gap theory out against atheists who know all about science and evolution these atheists may be wrong about God but they know about science and yet not one was ever able to produced evidence that demonstrates life evolves, and these atheist s would gang up on you,mock you and explain away any evidence you put forth. I was greatly challenged and liked it because it sharpened me, but I know I was making an impact and they could'nt handle it and so I was censored and banned because they complained and this was the forum AaronRa likes to use when he debates young earth creationists.Then after I was banned a few complained about it being too quite now.

[abelcainsbrother]

It is time to pull out the big guns church and stop playing patty-cake with evolution. Just this right here would do serious damage to evolution even if we did not get into any other evidence for the Gap theory,this alone in front of an audience - creationism vs evolution would make the evolutionist look silly. If life truly evolves like they believe they would be forced to demonstrate it does or lose support.

Hi Acb, just as a thought on what you wrote, could you demonstrate, in front of an audience, the act of creation?

I would not have to do that to defeat evolution.All I would have to do is provide evidence that shows a former world existed on this earth like the bible reveals and tells us then point out that not one scientist has ever demonstrated or showed us life evolves and point out the evidence used as evidence by scientists only demonstrates what plant and animal breeders were aware of thousands of years before Charles Darwin that life can adapt or that there is variation in reproduction,and explain this is not evidence life evolves,but is common knowledge yet they call this micro evolution.

But this is not what you said earlier. You claimed that you'd ask an evolutionist to "Demonstrate" evolution and that will be your "smoking gun" so to say. But you are, yourself excluded from such criteria?

Yes,I would because of how evolution is believed and taught as scientific truth. Neo, I have actually tested that gap theory out against atheists who know all about science and evolution these atheists may be wrong about God but they know about science and yet not one was ever able to produced evidence that demonstrates life evolves, and these atheist s would gang up on you,mock you and explain away any evidence you put forth. I was greatly challenged and liked it because it sharpened me, but I know I was making an impact and they could'nt handle it and so I was censored and banned because they complained and this was the forum AaronRa likes to use when he debates young earth creationists.Then after I was banned a few complained about it being too quite now.

I know my limitations because if it and am wiser now about how I make my case to atheists now.I now only present evidence when it is necessary and I was effective even without the evidence I know about but did not have. It is not necessary to present all of your evidence. I don't have access to my computer that has my saved links,so whether they know it or not. I was debating with one arm behind my back and I used their own evidence they used sometimes like with fossils.

One thing that bothered me though is they assume I'm a young earth creationists and try to debate me from that perspective and I would have to explain I'm not a young earth creationist.