"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
There is a lot of "jumping to conclusions" based on very selective interpretation there...abelcainsbrother wrote:OK Read this and compare
http://separationtruth.com/resources/GAP-SECTION+4.pdf
I wonder who are these people you refer to as 'evolutionists"? People who accept the theory would make up about the entire earth's scientific community. As well, of course, a great many religious and other educated people.abelcainsbrother wrote:How come the old earth Gap theory has been forgot about by the church? It was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin wrote his book "On the origin of species".William Buckland the first geology professor at Oxford taught the old earth biblical Gap theory.The old earth Gap theory needs to be revived by the church as it would give evolution serious competition problems if it was taught as fervently as say young earth creationism is today.For those that don't know the Gap theory teaches there was a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 based on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and Jeremiah 4:23-28.
The Gap theory tells us there was a former world on this earth full of life but it perished in a flood(not Noah's flood)Genesis 1:2 and all life that existed in it perished until God created this world and everything after Genesis 1:3 was God creating this world about 6-10,000 years ago. The geological evidence of an old earth with the fossils,coal and oil testify to a former world that existed but evolutionists hijacked this evidence away from the church after evolution became so popular and the Gap theory was forgot about by the church.
Why is regular OEC better than the Gap theory?I don't like stretching the 6 days of creation beyond 24 hour days and the Gap theory is old earth creationism too.
I think both Young earth creationists and Old earth creationists need to accept the Gap theory and stop ignoring it as evolution wouldn't stand a chance when we can remove a lot of their evidence off of the table using the old earth Gap theory to do it while pointing out there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and so you cannot use the fossils,etc as evidence for evolution.Evolutionists cannot use the fossils as evidence for evolution because they prove a former world existed that perished NOT evolution.Also the Gap theory is biblically sound which is why it was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin came along.
J Vernon McGee taught and believed in the Gap theory eventhough I don't think he got into the science of it.You can find the Gap theory in the Scofield reference bible,Dake reference bible,etc.
Evolutionists are those who have accepted evolution as proven science.I know the vast majority of scientists accept evolution but is that a reason to accept it?They are forced into accepting it too and risk losing their career in science if they come out against evolution Rupert Sheldrake is one example and he is an evolutionist and look at how he has been treated and he is trying to help evolution because of problems he sees with evolution science and DNA.As for Christians who have accepted evolution I say if both evolution and the bible are believed by faith then the bible God's word should win.Audie wrote:I wonder who are these people you refer to as 'evolutionists"? People who accept the theory would make up about the entire earth's scientific community. As well, of course, a great many religious and other educated people.abelcainsbrother wrote:How come the old earth Gap theory has been forgot about by the church? It was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin wrote his book "On the origin of species".William Buckland the first geology professor at Oxford taught the old earth biblical Gap theory.The old earth Gap theory needs to be revived by the church as it would give evolution serious competition problems if it was taught as fervently as say young earth creationism is today.For those that don't know the Gap theory teaches there was a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 based on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and Jeremiah 4:23-28.
The Gap theory tells us there was a former world on this earth full of life but it perished in a flood(not Noah's flood)Genesis 1:2 and all life that existed in it perished until God created this world and everything after Genesis 1:3 was God creating this world about 6-10,000 years ago. The geological evidence of an old earth with the fossils,coal and oil testify to a former world that existed but evolutionists hijacked this evidence away from the church after evolution became so popular and the Gap theory was forgot about by the church.
Why is regular OEC better than the Gap theory?I don't like stretching the 6 days of creation beyond 24 hour days and the Gap theory is old earth creationism too.
I think both Young earth creationists and Old earth creationists need to accept the Gap theory and stop ignoring it as evolution wouldn't stand a chance when we can remove a lot of their evidence off of the table using the old earth Gap theory to do it while pointing out there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and so you cannot use the fossils,etc as evidence for evolution.Evolutionists cannot use the fossils as evidence for evolution because they prove a former world existed that perished NOT evolution.Also the Gap theory is biblically sound which is why it was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin came along.
J Vernon McGee taught and believed in the Gap theory eventhough I don't think he got into the science of it.You can find the Gap theory in the Scofield reference bible,Dake reference bible,etc.
A theory is good only if the data consistently supports it, and nothing comes along to disprove it. The flood seems an important component of the gap thing, and as the flood is without a scientific basis, disproved by many many lines of evidence, there cannot be properly said to be a "gap theory".
Then why do the majority of scientists believe evolution if you say scientists know not to start with a conclusion? That is exactly what they've done because it has never been demonstrated life evolves and yet they have believed it and built all of this evidence around the conclusion life evolves.Most of the time science does not operate this way as they actually give evidence to support it and then build evidence around it but not when it comes to evolution.Audie wrote:Any scientist knows not to start with a conclusion,
and the easiest person to fool is yourself.
You seem to embrace those mistakes as highest
values, so you are beyond reach of anything more
from me.
If evolutionists are those of take as a proven fact (there may be such people) they are quite uneducated and their opinions are of no value. There are no proofs in science.abelcainsbrother wrote:Then why do the majority of scientists believe evolution if you say scientists know not to start with a conclusion? That is exactly what they've done because it has never been demonstrated life evolves and yet they have believed it and built all of this evidence around the conclusion life evolves.Most of the time science does not operate this way as they actually give evidence to support it and then build evidence around it but not when it comes to evolution.Audie wrote:Any scientist knows not to start with a conclusion,
and the easiest person to fool is yourself.
You seem to embrace those mistakes as highest
values, so you are beyond reach of anything more
from me.
^ now that is a sensible post Audie.Audie wrote:If evolutionists are those of take as a proven fact (there may be such people) they are quite uneducated and their opinions are of no value. There are no proofs in science.abelcainsbrother wrote:Then why do the majority of scientists believe evolution if you say scientists know not to start with a conclusion? That is exactly what they've done because it has never been demonstrated life evolves and yet they have believed it and built all of this evidence around the conclusion life evolves.Most of the time science does not operate this way as they actually give evidence to support it and then build evidence around it but not when it comes to evolution.Audie wrote:Any scientist knows not to start with a conclusion,
and the easiest person to fool is yourself.
You seem to embrace those mistakes as highest
values, so you are beyond reach of anything more
from me.
I wonder where you get the information you have been repeating?
The theory of evolution began as an explanation for extensive observations.
That is how any theory works. Observation-theory.
If a theory is unsound then someone will come across information that falsifies, or in more
recent parlance, disproves it.
One could I suppose say as you did of evolution that all of us, scientists included "start with conclusions" (science does not do conclusions) because there is a body of reliable information that we all find useful. We dont check all the original research
when we trust electricity to work. Disproof of evolution would blow a smoking crater, in all the physical sciences.
In the absence of any reason to think that has happened or is about to happen, we go about with
the working hypothesis that it is not about to happen.
I did see your list, which is from, where?
All theories and laws in science, tho, are provisional, and open to modification or disproof.
Old theories litter the landscape. Phony science like astrology or alchemy has no place.
The theory of evolution is no different. It is subject to disproof; it is not a religion. Disproof potentially could come
from a physics grad student in Beijing,
A Nobel awaits such a discovery.
So you admit scientists started out with a conclusion and that was my point and no I don't buy it that other areas of science are just theories.We can look into other areas of science and look at the evidence and know they are not just theories yet not when it comes to evolution.And if a Nobel awaits anybody who disproves evolution and they will win a Nobel prize then what do you have to say is the reason those that have come out against it have been treated?Audie wrote:If evolutionists are those of take as a proven fact (there may be such people) they are quite uneducated and their opinions are of no value. There are no proofs in science.abelcainsbrother wrote:Then why do the majority of scientists believe evolution if you say scientists know not to start with a conclusion? That is exactly what they've done because it has never been demonstrated life evolves and yet they have believed it and built all of this evidence around the conclusion life evolves.Most of the time science does not operate this way as they actually give evidence to support it and then build evidence around it but not when it comes to evolution.Audie wrote:Any scientist knows not to start with a conclusion,
and the easiest person to fool is yourself.
You seem to embrace those mistakes as highest
values, so you are beyond reach of anything more
from me.
I wonder where you get the information you have been repeating?
The theory of evolution began as an explanation for extensive observations.
That is how any theory works. Observation-theory.
If a theory is unsound then someone will come across information that falsifies, or in more
recent parlance, disproves it.
One could I suppose say as you did of evolution that all of us, scientists included "start with conclusions" (science does not do conclusions) because there is a body of reliable information that we all find useful. We dont check all the original research
when we trust electricity to work. Disproof of evolution would blow a smoking crater, in all the physical sciences.
In the absence of any reason to think that has happened or is about to happen, we go about with
the working hypothesis that it is not about to happen.
I did see your list, which is from, where?
All theories and laws in science, tho, are provisional, and open to modification or disproof.
Old theories litter the landscape. Phony science like astrology or alchemy has no place.
The theory of evolution is no different. It is subject to disproof; it is not a religion. Disproof potentially could come
from a physics grad student in Beijing,
A Nobel awaits such a discovery.
To repeat if you didnt get it. Theories cannot be proved. Your description of "evolutionists" would only apply tpabelcainsbrother wrote:So you admit scientists started out with a conclusion and that was my point and no I don't buy it that other areas of science are just theories.We can look into other areas of science and look at the evidence and know they are not just theories yet not when it comes to evolution.And if a Nobel awaits anybody who disproves evolution and they will win a Nobel prize then what do you have to say is the reason those that have come out against. have been treated?Audie wrote:If evolutionists are those of take as a proven fact (there may be such people) they are quite uneducated and their opinions are of no value. There are no proofs in science.abelcainsbrother wrote:Then why do the majority of scientists believe evolution if you say scientists know not to start with a conclusion? That is exactly what they've done because it has never been demonstrated life evolves and yet they have believed it and built all of this evidence around the conclusion life evolves.Most of the time science does not operate this way as they actually give evidence to support it and then build evidence around it but not when it comes to evolution.Audie wrote:Any scientist knows not to start with a conclusion,
and the easiest person to fool is yourself.
You seem to embrace those mistakes as highest
values, so you are beyond reach of anything more
from me.
I wonder where you get the information you have been repeating?
The theory of evolution began as an explanation for extensive observations.
That is how any theory works. Observation-theory.
If a theory is unsound then someone will come across information that falsifies, or in more
recent parlance, disproves it.
One could I suppose say as you did of evolution that all of us, scientists included "start with conclusions" (science does not do conclusions) because there is a body of reliable information that we all find useful. We dont check all the original research
when we trust electricity to work. Disproof of evolution would blow a smoking crater, in all the physical sciences.
In the absence of any reason to think that has happened or is about to happen, we go about with
the working hypothesis that it is not about to happen.
I did see your list, which is from, where?
All theories and laws in science, tho, are provisional, and open to modification or disproof.
Old theories litter the landscape. Phony science like astrology or alchemy has no place.
The theory of evolution is no different. It is subject to disproof; it is not a religion. Disproof potentially could come
from a physics grad student in Beijing,
A Nobel awaits such a discovery.
National Geographic:"The story of the earth" backs up the points I've made about the earth being covered in water billions of years ago and this lines up with Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:8-10 too according to what science says happened. National Geographic:"The story of the earth" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYOarZKipnU The Gap theory could win a Nobel prize for you if you would thoroughly examine it and then compare it to much of the evidence used for evolution.
This is because much of the evidence used as evidence for the Gap theory which was being taught by Christians before Charles Darwin came along was hijacked by evolutionists away from the Gap theory like I said earlier and after 150 years of evolution science still cannot demonstrate life evolves like they teach and believe and so the Gap theory is still just as true as before Charles Darwin came along.
William Buckland the first geology professor at Oxford was a Christian and taught the Gap theory and Charles Darwin was trying to thwart the Gap theory not young earth creationism when he wrote his book "On the origin of species".Read "On the origin of Species" from a perspective of trying to thwart the Gap theory and you'll see it in there.This history has been forgotten.Rev Thomas Chalmers who led many people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ was preaching and teaching the Gap theory about 50 years before Darwin wrote his book.
So if you truly believe a Nobel prize can be won look into the Gap theory and then get tough in Christ when you propose it as a scientific theory.
No faith involved, and no proof, sorry.abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie
I dont want to discuss things as an adversary, I'm sure we can have a respectful conversation, and learn from eachother. Dont you think so?I know National Geographic does not support creationism they support evolution science but you still fail to see the evidence I have presented and why and how it confirms Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:9-10
Im sorry but yes, I do fail to see evidence that you have presented. Could you pick one important item of evidence for me, and present that?
Im not saying here that evolution is right, or wrong; but Id like to show you how you can better present your case to someone who is not in your camp.Evolution is taught as scientific truth to society and yet you say it a just a theory.
You are making some misstatements about science, I can show you where you are making mistakes.
You might try trusting me a bit, as I do know science pretty well. I could provide links if it suits you.
Here are your mistakes in that sentence:
Science does not do "Truth". There simply is no such thing as "scientific truth'. Science deals in data and probabilities. If you mean to say "scientific fact", that isnt it either.
The only time you will hear a scientist speak of a 'fact' will be something like, "it is a fact that this is the data I got".
"Just a theory" is a bit of a misnomer. "Theory" has a very different meaning in science than it does in daily life where you might say "I've a theory (hunch) that they will serve meatloaf again.."
A scientific theory is an explanation for a large and consistent data set. Try reading this...http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html
Finally, how science is presented to the public varies widely, around the world and across social classes. Some of it is sadly incompetent, the quality of science education in American is a national disgrace.
Why yes, but we have to think of the word "If"! Evolution, the science that goes into it is not about faith. Its about data. And IF the word of God is the word of God, and IF one can read it with unerring understanding, then of course, the word of God preempts all.Welcome to the world of faith which goes back to what I said earlier if both evolution and the bible are believed by faith then God's word should win.
Many many Christians find that the natural world around them is not at odds with the God in whom they have faith.
Again, you will improve your presentation if you do not speak as one who is not familiar with the terms and concepts of science. Please do try to trust me on this, but if you do not choose to, you can look for yourself and you will see that I will not mislead you.Science has proven many things with evidence like the 2nd law of thermodynamics,we can observe around us what scientists have proven with evidence
Science does not do proof. There is no proof in science. Nothing can be proven by science. Proof is done in math, not in science.
The various physical laws we have, gas laws etc, are not and can never be proved to be correct.
The reason is very simple. Many observations showed that this "law" makes a general statement about how the law works.
However, and this is important, it is impossible to make every observation of every possible situation. There COULD be an exception; you cannot prove there is no e exception. So the law is not proved, and never can be. Same thing with theories.
.Everyday we see man putting energy into slowing entropy down because we know things don't last as long if we don't,this is why we have so many jobs out there that do maintenance on the things we own because of the 2nd law.Yet when it comes to evolution we must believe scientists by faith and allow them to interpret the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective.I am not saying the 2nd law prevents life from evolving only pointing out that science has proven the 2nd law is at work in our world.
Thanks Rick, your encouragement will help keep me in line, Im kind of an excitable sort and may be tempted to be intemperate.RickD wrote:Audie, just between you and me, you have been a breath of fresh air to this forum. Lately, we have had more than our fair share of unpleasant atheists here. It's really nice to see someone like yourself, having actual conversations, with actual listening to what others say.
But please don't tell anyone I said this. They'll all think I'm a nice person. We can't have that.
Audie wrote:No faith involved, and no proof, sorry.abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie
I dont want to discuss things as an adversary, I'm sure we can have a respectful conversation, and learn from eachother. Dont you think so?I know National Geographic does not support creationism they support evolution science but you still fail to see the evidence I have presented and why and how it confirms Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:9-10
Im sorry but yes, I do fail to see evidence that you have presented. Could you pick one important item of evidence for me, and present that?
Im not saying here that evolution is right, or wrong; but Id like to show you how you can better present your case to someone who is not in your camp.Evolution is taught as scientific truth to society and yet you say it a just a theory.
You are making some misstatements about science, I can show you where you are making mistakes.
You might try trusting me a bit, as I do know science pretty well. I could provide links if it suits you.
Here are your mistakes in that sentence:
Science does not do "Truth". There simply is no such thing as "scientific truth'. Science deals in data and probabilities. If you mean to say "scientific fact", that isnt it either.
The only time you will hear a scientist speak of a 'fact' will be something like, "it is a fact that this is the data I got".
"Just a theory" is a bit of a misnomer. "Theory" has a very different meaning in science than it does in daily life where you might say "I've a theory (hunch) that they will serve meatloaf again.."
A scientific theory is an explanation for a large and consistent data set. Try reading this...http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html
Finally, how science is presented to the public varies widely, around the world and across social classes. Some of it is sadly incompetent, the quality of science education in American is a national disgrace.
Why yes, but we have to think of the word "If"! Evolution, the science that goes into it is not about faith. Its about data. And IF the word of God is the word of God, and IF one can read it with unerring understanding, then of course, the word of God preempts all.Welcome to the world of faith which goes back to what I said earlier if both evolution and the bible are believed by faith then God's word should win.
Many many Christians find that the natural world around them is not at odds with the God in whom they have faith.
Again, you will improve your presentation if you do not speak as one who is not familiar with the terms and concepts of science. Please do try to trust me on this, but if you do not choose to, you can look for yourself and you will see that I will not mislead you.Science has proven many things with evidence like the 2nd law of thermodynamics,we can observe around us what scientists have proven with evidence
Science does not do proof. There is no proof in science. Nothing can be proven by science. Proof is done in math, not in science.
The various physical laws we have, gas laws etc, are not and can never be proved to be correct.
The reason is very simple. Many observations showed that this "law" makes a general statement about how the law works.
However, and this is important, it is impossible to make every observation of every possible situation. There COULD be an exception; you cannot prove there is no e exception. So the law is not proved, and never can be. Same thing with theories.
.Everyday we see man putting energy into slowing entropy down because we know things don't last as long if we don't,this is why we have so many jobs out there that do maintenance on the things we own because of the 2nd law.Yet when it comes to evolution we must believe scientists by faith and allow them to interpret the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective.I am not saying the 2nd law prevents life from evolving only pointing out that science has proven the 2nd law is at work in our world.
Here is a cool concept that may help you with a wider perspective on 2LOT. Yes, things wear out break down, dissipate, get disorganized.
But there is also a countercurrent, that organizes things. Your Mom, when you were a kid, straightened out your room. She put energy in. ANY flow of energy will act to organize matter in some way. Look at a magnet and iron filings. Observe the forming of an ice crystal. The flow of water, making a river system. But I guess you know that anyway, as you agreed (as some cant seem to) that entropy is not going to intefere with evoltuion. ToE may be right and it may be wrong, but 2LOT isnt the reason.
Any questions about those ideas, I will be glad to try my best to explain or find you a suitable reference.
Exchange of ideas, tho, not arguing ok?