The Gap theory

[Audie]

Abe, you are your own enemy. You and I are not.

Please address this:

What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

You say nothing transitional has been found? So what is your unique personal take on this? Explain how to tell if something is or is not transitional. Take your time.

[abelcainsbrother]

Abe, you are your own enemy. You and I are not.

Please address this:

What on earth do you imagine a transitional form would be? A salamander with fur?

You say nothing transitional has been found? So what is your unique personal take on this? Explain how to tell if something is or is not transitional. Take your time.

What I consider a transitional fossil is based on how Charles Darwin made his case for evolution.He insisted that the tiny variation we see in a litter of kittens could be extrapolated,generation after generation,until the cat becomes a new and totally different creature and he expected many fossils would be found that are evidence for this,yet when we look at the fossils we see that none were ever found and that all fossils found are all fully formed creatures that once lived millions of years ago and died. There is no way you can look at any fossil that has been found and believe life evolves unless a person uses evolution imagination.

Here is a funny video for you. Evolutionists debunk evolution.I disagree with Kent Hovind on his creation theory but this is funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJ-nvN ... ture=share
Charles Darwin acknowledged the fossils that had already been found in his day showed no transition,so we have the same problem that Charles Darwin had and acknowledged despite these fossils being called transitional fossils today. So when you ask me what a transition fossil should look like? I say we should be able to look at fossils and see evidence that one creature was evolving into another creature and there would be no guessing about it,no assumptions,it would be apparent but it is'nt. Not even Archy is a transitional fossil,it was a fully formed creature that lived until it died. Trilobites are some of my favorite fossils and eventhough there are about 20 different species,there is no transition and its the same with any fossils found. Also "Cladistics" that was used to determine a common ancestor,is a joke!

[RickD]

Despite the fact that acb posted a video of Kent Hovind, to back his point(shame on you ACB ), ACB is absolutely correct that there are no intermediate fossils.

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to prove evolution, when there are no intermediates.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB: I respect Progressive Creationism because it is old earth creationism too but we cannot all be right and I know many of them reject evolution too.

I don't see how it has much of an impact against evolution if they reject evolution, perhaps they tolerate it.

Progressive creationists reject macroevolution. Period!

ACB, if only you realized that evolution arguments are irrelevant, as they are around 10 billion years after the fact of what really needs explaining (Creation / The Big Bang began, its origin, its intelligence and power). Arguing over evolution is arguing over the very near end of a movie for clues as to how events transpired as the did - without knowing the setting, characters and key variables that were at the movie's beginning. Evolution can't explain the origins or the Big Bang - upon which ALL physical things are dependent upon.

ACB: But Gap Creationism makes evolution wrong,so we have a hard time tolerating it when we believe the truth has been covered up because of evolution. Why tolerate evolution if you reject it?

So, it does so by saying what - that the fossils are actually YOUNG? No, it agrees with evolutionists that they are old, as do PEs and Darwinists. - except that the fossils are from a former world, apparently.

So what you're saying is we already have it figured out how to explain the beginning of the creation according to the Big Bang and so evolution is irrelevant,if we can just explain this from a biblical point of view. But I disagree there are alot of scientific mined people who reject God and the bible because of evolution. This is a problem that gets overlooked meanwhile the problen still persists,this makes evolution relevant to the dicussion.

I say we would not have this evolution problem causing scientific minded peope to reject God and the bible had Gap creationism had been taught. It might be some other reason tey reject Go,but it would'nt be naturalistic evolution. Yet e face this evolution problem as we try to reach the lost and it is a stumbling block to our efforts. I don't see how Gap creationism hurts or effects Progressive creationism like so many of you seem to think. We need every kind of arsenal in our determintion to reach the lost as the body of Christ. While ya'll are teacing how the Big Bag applies,we could be taking out the theory of evolution like no other creation theory has been able to do. Gap creationism is that knock-out punch we need to defeat the slowly dying theory of evolution nd to turn people on to the word of God also. I totally disagree that evolution is irrelevant as we as the body of Christ try to reach the lost that believe it is true. It does'nt effect Progressive creationism but helps it. Instead of using YEC to take out evolution,we use Gap Creationism.

[Philip]

ACB: But I disagree there are alot of scientific mined people who reject God and the bible because of evolution. This is a problem that gets overlooked meanwhile the problen still persists,this makes evolution relevant to the dicussion.

So, the choices are ONLY evolution vs. GAP Theory? That is not credible.

ACB, are you saying the ancient age is all in the former world, and that the present world is no older than YECs insist? What age do you consider THIS world?

[Audie]

Despite the fact that acb posted a video of Kent Hovind, to back his point(shame on you ACB ), ACB is absolutely correct that there are no intermediate fossils.

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to prove evolution, when there are no intermediates.

Seriously RD? This is a really dimwit comment.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB: But I disagree there are alot of scientific mined people who reject God and the bible because of evolution. This is a problem that gets overlooked meanwhile the problen still persists,this makes evolution relevant to the dicussion.

So, the choices are ONLY evolution vs. GAP Theory? That is not credible.

ACB, are you saying the ancient age is all in the former world, and that the present world is no older than YECs insist? What age do you consider THIS world?

I realize we disagree but when it comes to using creationism to refute evolution? Yes,I believe Gap creationism is the only one that can but has not really been used to do it.I have no problem with Progressive creationists keeping on teaching their perspective either. I mean we can see no creation theory tht has been used against evolution has worked against evolution. And we've seen both YEC and Intelligent Design go up against evolution ad yet evolution is still here. My contention is that Gap creationism should ave been used instead,but it was'nt.
Yes most of the ancient earth is the result of the former world that existed on this earth that perished then there was a Gap of time until about 6000 years go when God MADE this world and CREATED and MADE life for his world.

Now because I am open to the arguments made about the hebrew word "yom" I can possibly see how it could have been even further back,but it is not as important to Gap creationists because the bible already teaches an old earth,as a matter of fact a former world would mean the earth is old,so we already we have the bible telling us the earth is old. We know if the bible tells us a former world existed that perished 2nd Peter 3:6 the earth is older than when God created and made life for this world in Genesis 1 even before we even search the scriptures further to find more biblical reasons to accept it.

[RickD]

Despite the fact that acb posted a video of Kent Hovind, to back his point(shame on you ACB ), ACB is absolutely correct that there are no intermediate fossils.

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to prove evolution, when there are no intermediates.

Seriously RD? This is a really dimwit comment.

How so?

[Audie]

Despite the fact that acb posted a video of Kent Hovind, to back his point(shame on you ACB ), ACB is absolutely correct that there are no intermediate fossils.

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to prove evolution, when there are no intermediates.

Seriously RD? This is a really dimwit comment.

How so?

Start with the word "prove". You are unaware that science does not deal with "proof", or you are just being sloppy?

As for the intermediates, why dont you tell me, as ABE seems unable to do so, what a "transitional" or, "intermediate" fossil would be.

You seem to be onto some "absolute" here, tell me about it.

[abelcainsbrother]

Despite the fact that acb posted a video of Kent Hovind, to back his point(shame on you ACB ), ACB is absolutely correct that there are no intermediate fossils.

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to prove evolution, when there are no intermediates.

Seriously RD? This is a really dimwit comment.

How so?

Start with the word "prove". You are unaware that science does not deal with "proof", or you are just being sloppy?

As for the intermediates, why dont you tell me, as ABE seems unable to do so, what a "transitional" or, "intermediate" fossil would be.

You seem to be onto some "absolute" here, tell me about it.

I have already explained what a transitional fossil should show. How about you explain why it is good for science to call them transitional fossils with such weak evidence? I hve already given a link and you can look and see no fossil shows transition,you don't have to be a Paleontologist to see there is no transition.

[RickD]

Despite the fact that acb posted a video of Kent Hovind, to back his point(shame on you ACB ), ACB is absolutely correct that there are no intermediate fossils.

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to prove evolution, when there are no intermediates.

Seriously RD? This is a really dimwit comment.

How so?

Start with the word "prove". You are unaware that science does not deal with "proof", or you are just being sloppy?

As for the intermediates, why dont you tell me, as ABE seems unable to do so, what a "transitional" or, "intermediate" fossil would be.

You seem to be onto some "absolute" here, tell me about it.

Ok fine.

I meant this:

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to support evolution's assertion that the fossil record is evidence of intermediates, when there are no intermediates.

intermediate fossils would show life changing from one kind of life, to another. Intermediate fossils would support life changing from sea life, to life on land, WITHOUT THE FOSSILS MERELY SHOWING DIFFERENT LIFE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED THAT WAY.

The evidence needs to support evolution, while disproving different life being created at different times throughout history.

[Audie]

Despite the fact that acb posted a video of Kent Hovind, to back his point(shame on you ACB ), ACB is absolutely correct that there are no intermediate fossils.

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to prove evolution, when there are no intermediates.

Seriously RD? This is a really dimwit comment.

How so?

Start with the word "prove". You are unaware that science does not deal with "proof", or you are just being sloppy?

As for the intermediates, why dont you tell me, as ABE seems unable to do so, what a "transitional" or, "intermediate" fossil would be.

You seem to be onto some "absolute" here, tell me about it.

Ok fine.

I meant this:

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to support evolution's assertion that the fossil record is evidence of intermediates, when there are no intermediates.

intermediate fossils would show life changing from one kind of life, to another. Intermediate fossils would support life changing from sea life, to life on land, WITHOUT THE FOSSILS MERELY SHOWING DIFFERENT LIFE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED THAT WAY.

The evidence needs to support evolution, while disproving different life being created at different times throughout history.

You are making the assertion that "there are no intermediates". i asked
you what an intermediate is.

You seem to sort of get the idea, but hand wave any and all examples with
"may of been created that way".

So ok, sure. Maybe your god made an endless succession of slightly altered organisms in a pattern that mimics evolution, while providing the genetic and selective mechanisms for evolution to have taken place. Tricky, like erasing all evidence of the flood.

If you want to go with that, go ahead. It is as unfalsifiable as an assertion that you've a secret invisible alien flying saucer base in your molars.

[Audie]

Despite the fact that acb posted a video of Kent Hovind, to back his point(shame on you ACB ), ACB is absolutely correct that there are no intermediate fossils.

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to prove evolution, when there are no intermediates.

Seriously RD? This is a really dimwit comment.

How so?

Start with the word "prove". You are unaware that science does not deal with "proof", or you are just being sloppy?

As for the intermediates, why dont you tell me, as ABE seems unable to do so, what a "transitional" or, "intermediate" fossil would be.

You seem to be onto some "absolute" here, tell me about it.

I have already explained what a transitional fossil should show. How about you explain why it is good for science to call them transitional fossils with such weak evidence? I hve already given a link and you can look and see no fossil shows transition,you don't have to be a Paleontologist to see there is no transition.

A link to a creo-vid? Wonderful.

You did not do anything even faintly resembling describing a transitional form.

Or address the thing about "fully formed".

If you cant or wont do that, dont bother to say anything, please.

[RickD]

Seriously RD? This is a really dimwit comment.

How so?

Start with the word "prove". You are unaware that science does not deal with "proof", or you are just being sloppy?

As for the intermediates, why dont you tell me, as ABE seems unable to do so, what a "transitional" or, "intermediate" fossil would be.

You seem to be onto some "absolute" here, tell me about it.

Ok fine.

I meant this:

Does that disprove evolution? Of course not. But fossils can't be used to support evolution's assertion that the fossil record is evidence of intermediates, when there are no intermediates.

intermediate fossils would show life changing from one kind of life, to another. Intermediate fossils would support life changing from sea life, to life on land, WITHOUT THE FOSSILS MERELY SHOWING DIFFERENT LIFE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED THAT WAY.

The evidence needs to support evolution, while disproving different life being created at different times throughout history.

You are making the assertion that "there are no intermediates". i asked
you what an intermediate is.
And I told you what an intermediate would be, if one existed.
You seem to sort of get the idea, but hand wave any and all examples with
"may of been created that way".
There's no hand waving going on. I say the fossil evidence supports progressive creation better than the theory of evolution.
So ok, sure. Maybe your god made an endless succession of slightly altered organisms in a pattern that mimics evolution, while providing the genetic and selective mechanisms for evolution to have taken place. Tricky, like erasing all evidence of the flood.
Nope, not endless. His creation ended with man. And, stop throwing out the stupid global flood straw man crap. I told you I don't believe in a global flood, so there wouldn't be any evidence for one.

If you want to go with that, go ahead. It is as unfalsifiable as an assertion that you've a secret invisible alien flying saucer base in your molars.
If progressive creation is wrong, it will be shown to be wrong. The more scientific findings that happen in the future, will lean towards whatever is correct. Be it evolution, progressive creation, or whatever. For someone who claims to know a lot about science, you really should know that if Progressive creation is a bunch of hooey, the evidence will eventually show it. So no. It's not unfalsifiable.

[DBowling]

Tricky, like erasing all evidence of the flood.
And, stop throwing out the stupid global flood straw man crap. I told you I don't believe in a global flood, so there wouldn't be any evidence for one.

BTW... the lack of physical evidence for an aleged 'global flood' is another problem with the Gap Theory.

YEC and the Gap Theory both assert a 'Global Flood' for which there is no geological evidence. They just place their global floods at different times in history.

In Christ