Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The gap theory is a scientific theory before evolution became so popular

How was it so?

William Buckland was the very first geology professor at Oxford and he taught the gap theory there.He used the bible and geology to try to prove it true,imagine that today.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#gs_s ... m+buckland

It is impossible to prove a theory is true, a principle that has been understood for many many years.

This kind of thinking I do not agree with and from my perception they only say this for the sake of evolution which is propped up above all other areas of science.You see I think theories can become truth and even a fact with evidence.If I tell you life evolves what kind of evidence would prove it true?You believe in evaporation and yet it is because it can be backed up with evidence that demonstrates it.If I tell you that a former world full of life existed on this earth that perished before this world was here what kind of evidence could prove it?I would think we would need evidence of an old earth and evidence that alot of life died and is extinct now which is what we find in the earth.

Perhaps a fellow Christian will take time to guide you thru this, why no theory can be proved. I have the feeling you'd
not accept anything I say.

RickD wrote:

ACB wrote:
...If I tell you that a former world full of life existed on this earth that perished before this world was here what kind of evidence could prove it?I would think we would need evidence of an old earth and evidence that alot of life died and is extinct now which is what we find in the earth.

You do realize that doesn't prove the gap theory, don't you?

Evidence of an old earth, and evidence of a lot of things that died, just points to an old earth, and a lot of dead things.

All we can do is try to look for evidence for a former world but I think just what I've mentioned is certainly evidence for a former world,I mean short of actually being able to time travel back what kind of evidence could prove it? Should we just continue to look at everything from an evolution perspective?

Perhaps a fellow Christian will take time to guide you thru this, why no theory can be proved. I have the feeling you'd
not accept anything I say.

Why would you say I'd not accept anything you say? I would consider it and if I disagreed would explain why and it would be respectful too.How do we as humans decide what is true or not?I say evidence and many theories have became truth based on evidence,however this is not always the case because there have been times when theories have been promoted as truth and yet there is a lack of evidence.

But it seems like today or maybe it has always been this way but sometimes even when evidence is given to support the truth people still choose to reject it and it wouldn't matter how much evidence you laid out.But for those actually searching for truth it will matter to them and the truth will shine through with evidence to back it up too.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Perhaps a fellow Christian will take time to guide you thru this, why no theory can be proved. I have the feeling you'd
not accept anything I say.

Why would you say I'd not accept anything you say? I would consider it and if I disagreed would explain why and it would be respectful too.How do we as humans decide what is true or not?I say evidence and many theories have became truth based on evidence,however this is not always the case because there have been times when theories have been promoted as truth and yet there is a lack of evidence.

But it seems like today or maybe it has always been this way but sometimes even when evidence is given to support the truth people still choose to reject it and it wouldn't matter how much evidence you laid out.But for those actually searching for truth it will matter to them and the truth will shine through with evidence to back it up too.

This is an example of why I'd say it. You dont accept it, nor take two minutes to look it up nor to ask
why I said it.

You didnt even pay enough respect to my words to notice I was talking about how one cannot prove a theory, not "truth". Or maybe, who knows, truth and proof are the same to you.

Regardless, you are completely off topic.

And no, a theory cannot "become truth". Nor can it be proved.
Ever. Impossible.

That a theory or law cannot be proven is one of the most basic core concepts of science.

Consider well what it means that you could be unaware of that..

A theory can't be proved, if it could it would be a fact.

Evolution is a theory, a gap world is a theory, creationism (is that the correct term?) is a theory.

If I'm honest, none of these theories sway me enough.

So where does that leave me?

Annette

Storyteller wrote:A theory can't be proved, if it could it would be a fact.

Evolution is a theory, a gap world is a theory, creationism (is that the correct term?) is a theory.

If I'm honest, none of these theories sway me enough.

So where does that leave me?

Annette

Depends on what seems of interest or value to you!
But in general nothing is of interest if you know nothing about it.

Why do you ask?

Storyteller wrote:A theory can't be proved, if it could it would be a fact.

Evolution is a theory, a gap world is a theory, creationism (is that the correct term?) is a theory.

If I'm honest, none of these theories sway me enough.

So where does that leave me?

Annette

Don't be too concerned Annette,
I have read a lot regarding all the theories and I am uncertain. I sway a little more in one direction but nothing definitive and I'm not sure that I ever will 'make up my mind'. I know the important stuff.
I'm still trying to work on myself, have patience, not call the guy in the car next to me who just cut me off a ****head to have the mysteries of the universe all worked out

melanie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:A theory can't be proved, if it could it would be a fact.

Evolution is a theory, a gap world is a theory, creationism (is that the correct term?) is a theory.

If I'm honest, none of these theories sway me enough.

So where does that leave me?

Annette

Don't be too concerned Annette,
I have read a lot regarding all the theories and I am uncertain. I sway a little more in one direction but nothing definitive and I'm not sure that I ever will 'make up my mind'. I know the important stuff.
I'm still trying to work on myself, have patience, not call the guy in the car next to me who just cut me off a ****head to have the mysteries of the universe all worked out

You could try being a thick glasses nerd like me, but, perhaps not.

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:A theory can't be proved, if it could it would be a fact.

Evolution is a theory, a gap world is a theory, creationism (is that the correct term?) is a theory.

If I'm honest, none of these theories sway me enough.

So where does that leave me?

Annette

Depends on what seems of interest or value to you!
But in general nothing is of interest if you know nothing about it.

Why do you ask?

Because my favourite question is why.

It's all of interest to me. Why do we seek to know the end when we don't know the beginning?

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:A theory can't be proved, if it could it would be a fact.

Evolution is a theory, a gap world is a theory, creationism (is that the correct term?) is a theory.

If I'm honest, none of these theories sway me enough.

So where does that leave me?

Annette

Depends on what seems of interest or value to you!
But in general nothing is of interest if you know nothing about it.

Why do you ask?

Because my favourite question is why.

It's all of interest to me. Why do we seek to know the end when we don't know the beginning?

Who is seeking to know the end of what?

How about the study of what is in the middle, since beginning and end are unknowable?

Storyteller wrote:A theory can't be proved, if it could it would be a fact.

Evolution is a theory, a gap world is a theory, creationism (is that the correct term?) is a theory.

If I'm honest, none of these theories sway me enough.

So where does that leave me?

Annette

Don't confuse layman terms of "theory" and scientific use of the term theory, they are NOT the same thing.

Lay people use theory like science uses hypothesis.

Evolution is a theory based on observable facts and experiments.
Gab theory is, well...no comment.
Creationism is a theological perspective, it is not a theory.

PaulS wrote:
Creationism is a theological perspective, it is not a theory.

Is ID a Scientific theory?

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Creationism is a theological perspective, it is not a theory.

Is ID a Scientific theory?

I will accept that it could be a hypothesis, but it sure doesnt rise to the level of a theory.

If you like links, search under "skeptical intelligent design" and you will find plenty of opportunity to play dueling websites. And I think it telling that few without religious motive and agenda have much interest in ID.

Something like with SETI, and the quest for bigfoot, I dont pay much attention to ID, and wont unless they actually find something.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Creationism is a theological perspective, it is not a theory.

Is ID a Scientific theory?

I will accept that it could be a hypothesis, but it sure doesnt rise to the level of a theory.

If you like links, search under "skeptical intelligent design" and you will find plenty of opportunity to play dueling websites. And I think it telling that few without religious motive and agenda have much interest in ID.

Something like with SETI, and the quest for bigfoot, I dont pay much attention to ID, and wont unless they actually find something.

Audie,

in a nutshell, ID just means the universe has a designer. I'm sure within ID there are many different beliefs, some with agendas.

Just like I could say that some people who believe in evolution have an antiGod agenda. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is antiGod.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Creationism is a theological perspective, it is not a theory.

Is ID a Scientific theory?

I will accept that it could be a hypothesis, but it sure doesnt rise to the level of a theory.

If you like links, search under "skeptical intelligent design" and you will find plenty of opportunity to play dueling websites. And I think it telling that few without religious motive and agenda have much interest in ID.

Something like with SETI, and the quest for bigfoot, I dont pay much attention to ID, and wont unless they actually find something.

Audie,

in a nutshell, ID just means the universe has a designer. I'm sure within ID there are many different beliefs, some with agendas.

Just like I could say that some people who believe in evolution have an antiGod agenda. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is antiGod.

All agreed, but that takes it even further from being a theory, dont you think so?