Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

ACB wrote:
...and if the Big Bang is ever falsified? It ruins Day Age Creationism.

I can't wait to hear the explanation on this...

It seems pretty sound for now and it does'nt seem like its going to be changed anytime soon,but...

That's no explanation. If the Big Bang is ever falsified, why would that ruin Day Age Creationism?

Because it has been built on the Big Bang theory.Would'nt it have to be changed to fit the new theory to keep it going? Remember the Steady state theory?What happened to it?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

ACB wrote:
...and if the Big Bang is ever falsified? It ruins Day Age Creationism.

I can't wait to hear the explanation on this...

It seems pretty sound for now and it does'nt seem like its going to be changed anytime soon,but...

That's no explanation. If the Big Bang is ever falsified, why would that ruin Day Age Creationism?

Because it has been built on the Big Bang theory.Would'nt it have to be changed to fit the new theory to keep it going? Remember the Steady state theory?What happened to it?

How is Day Age built upon the Big Bang? And then after you explain that, why would it ruin Day Age creationism?

Really, please explain.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Do you have something to contribute here other than an inane quip?

My inane quip was just an appropriate response to your quip, which was a response to my other inane quip.

Googling "inane".....

I was just stating the facts. If you prefer a heavy pedantic style, I can do that too.

There is no gap theory.

Of course there is.

Theory:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There's more than one meaning of theory.

And as ridiculous as you think the Gap theory is, it's infinitely less ridiculous than atheism.

Work on your reading comprehension / memory and try to avoid playing equivocation fallacy.

there is no gap theory.

No more than there is a loch ness monster. Talking about it doesnt make it exist.

"Gap" may be a theory in some biblical sense. He presents it as science. As such, there is no theory.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Do you have something to contribute here other than an inane quip?

My inane quip was just an appropriate response to your quip, which was a response to my other inane quip.

Googling "inane".....

I was just stating the facts. If you prefer a heavy pedantic style, I can do that too.

There is no gap theory.

Of course there is.

Theory:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There's more than one meaning of theory.

And as ridiculous as you think the Gap theory is, it's infinitely less ridiculous than atheism.

Work on your reading comprehension / memory and try to avoid playing equivocation fallacy.

there is no gap theory.

No more than there is a loch ness monster. Talking about it doesnt make it exist.

"Gap" may be a theory in some biblical sense. He presents it as science. As such, there is no theory.

Whether or not ACB correctly presents the Gap theory, doesn't change the fact that there is a gap theory.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:
I can't wait to hear the explanation on this...

It seems pretty sound for now and it does'nt seem like its going to be changed anytime soon,but...

That's no explanation. If the Big Bang is ever falsified, why would that ruin Day Age Creationism?

Because it has been built on the Big Bang theory.Would'nt it have to be changed to fit the new theory to keep it going? Remember the Steady state theory?What happened to it?

How is Day Age built upon the Big Bang? And then after you explain that, why would it ruin Day Age creationism?

Really, please explain.

Because the Big Bang Theory is used to show that interpretation is right today.Now I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is as old as the Day Age interpretation,but Big Bang cosmology is used to teach it today so I would think if the Big Bang Theory was replaced by a better theory it could ruin the interpretation.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Do you have something to contribute here other than an inane quip?

My inane quip was just an appropriate response to your quip, which was a response to my other inane quip.

Googling "inane".....

I was just stating the facts. If you prefer a heavy pedantic style, I can do that too.

There is no gap theory.

Of course there is.

Theory:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There's more than one meaning of theory.

And as ridiculous as you think the Gap theory is, it's infinitely less ridiculous than atheism.

Work on your reading comprehension / memory and try to avoid playing equivocation fallacy.

there is no gap theory.

No more than there is a loch ness monster. Talking about it doesnt make it exist.

"Gap" may be a theory in some biblical sense. He presents it as science. As such, there is no theory.

No I don't. I have never presented the Gap Theory as a scientific theory,because it is'nt one.I still believe if the Gap Theory and the theory of evolution were taught side by side once all of the evidence is laid out more people would believe the Gap Theory but that does not make it a scientific theory. A scientific theory is different than a theory but some Gap Theorists call it the Gap Fact.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
It seems pretty sound for now and it does'nt seem like its going to be changed anytime soon,but...

That's no explanation. If the Big Bang is ever falsified, why would that ruin Day Age Creationism?

Because it has been built on the Big Bang theory.Would'nt it have to be changed to fit the new theory to keep it going? Remember the Steady state theory?What happened to it?

How is Day Age built upon the Big Bang? And then after you explain that, why would it ruin Day Age creationism?

Really, please explain.

Because the Big Bang Theory is used to show that interpretation is right today.Now I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is as old as the Day Age interpretation,but Big Bang cosmology is used to teach it today so I would think if the Big Bang Theory was replaced by a better theory it could ruin the interpretation.

Do you think you could actually provide an answer to the question, instead of dancing around an actual substantive answer?

Now I know why Trump appeals to you so much. He does the same thing when he's pressed on why he believes something.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: My inane quip was just an appropriate response to your quip, which was a response to my other inane quip.

Googling "inane".....

I was just stating the facts. If you prefer a heavy pedantic style, I can do that too.

There is no gap theory.

Of course there is.

Theory:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There's more than one meaning of theory.

And as ridiculous as you think the Gap theory is, it's infinitely less ridiculous than atheism.

Work on your reading comprehension / memory and try to avoid playing equivocation fallacy.

there is no gap theory.

No more than there is a loch ness monster. Talking about it doesnt make it exist.

"Gap" may be a theory in some biblical sense. He presents it as science. As such, there is no theory.

Whether or not ACB correctly presents the Gap theory, doesn't change the fact that there is a gap theory.

Gimme an e, gimme a q, gimme an ivo and a c a t i o n.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote: That's no explanation. If the Big Bang is ever falsified, why would that ruin Day Age Creationism?

Because it has been built on the Big Bang theory.Would'nt it have to be changed to fit the new theory to keep it going? Remember the Steady state theory?What happened to it?

How is Day Age built upon the Big Bang? And then after you explain that, why would it ruin Day Age creationism?

Really, please explain.

Because the Big Bang Theory is used to show that interpretation is right today.Now I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is as old as the Day Age interpretation,but Big Bang cosmology is used to teach it today so I would think if the Big Bang Theory was replaced by a better theory it could ruin the interpretation.

Do you think you could actually provide an answer to the question, instead of dancing around an actual substantive answer?

Now I know why Trump appeals to you so much. He does the same thing when he's pressed on why he believes something.

same thing when pressed to point to where the "flood layer is" and identify those beasties
only present before, vs those present after that one event.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: My inane quip was just an appropriate response to your quip, which was a response to my other inane quip.

Googling "inane".....

I was just stating the facts. If you prefer a heavy pedantic style, I can do that too.

There is no gap theory.

Of course there is.

Theory:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There's more than one meaning of theory.

And as ridiculous as you think the Gap theory is, it's infinitely less ridiculous than atheism.

Work on your reading comprehension / memory and try to avoid playing equivocation fallacy.

there is no gap theory.

No more than there is a loch ness monster. Talking about it doesnt make it exist.

"Gap" may be a theory in some biblical sense. He presents it as science. As such, there is no theory.

No I don't. I have never presented the Gap Theory as a scientific theory,because it is'nt one.I still believe if the Gap Theory and the theory of evolution were taught side by side once all of the evidence is laid out more people would believe the Gap Theory but that does not make it a scientific theory. A scientific theory is different than a theory but some Gap Theorists call it the Gap Fact.

You pretend to use science to show your non theory is correct. If you want to call it a bible theory, fine. Just refer to the bible. When you try to bring in science you go off the rails into fantasy and falsehood.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

I was just stating the facts. If you prefer a heavy pedantic style, I can do that too.

There is no gap theory.

Of course there is.

Theory:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There's more than one meaning of theory.

And as ridiculous as you think the Gap theory is, it's infinitely less ridiculous than atheism.

Work on your reading comprehension / memory and try to avoid playing equivocation fallacy.

there is no gap theory.

No more than there is a loch ness monster. Talking about it doesnt make it exist.

"Gap" may be a theory in some biblical sense. He presents it as science. As such, there is no theory.

Whether or not ACB correctly presents the Gap theory, doesn't change the fact that there is a gap theory.

Gimme an e, gimme a q, gimme an ivo and a c a t i o n.

Rick: "I have an Adam's apple".

Audie:"There's no such thing. That's equivocation".

Audie,

Would you say there is Gap Creationism?

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote: That's no explanation. If the Big Bang is ever falsified, why would that ruin Day Age Creationism?

Because it has been built on the Big Bang theory.Would'nt it have to be changed to fit the new theory to keep it going? Remember the Steady state theory?What happened to it?

How is Day Age built upon the Big Bang? And then after you explain that, why would it ruin Day Age creationism?

Really, please explain.

Because the Big Bang Theory is used to show that interpretation is right today.Now I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is as old as the Day Age interpretation,but Big Bang cosmology is used to teach it today so I would think if the Big Bang Theory was replaced by a better theory it could ruin the interpretation.

Do you think you could actually provide an answer to the question, instead of dancing around an actual substantive answer?

Now I know why Trump appeals to you so much. He does the same thing when he's pressed on why he believes something.

I have heard Hugh Ross teach it and he mostly uses the Big Bang to show how it fits with the Day Age interpretation,but I think it would change things if the Big Bang Theory was replaced by another theory. It is just something I've wondered about,it is just my own opinion. Did I say something wrong about the way Day Age is taught? Because it is just an honest opinion based on what I've read and seen about the Day Age interpretation but I'm not trying to just make up stuff and I would'nt do it knowingly. I prefer to be as truthful as I can even if I have disagreements with it. I don't like it when the Gap Theory is not properly presented by critics of it,so it is not my intention.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Because it has been built on the Big Bang theory.Would'nt it have to be changed to fit the new theory to keep it going? Remember the Steady state theory?What happened to it?

How is Day Age built upon the Big Bang? And then after you explain that, why would it ruin Day Age creationism?

Really, please explain.

Because the Big Bang Theory is used to show that interpretation is right today.Now I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is as old as the Day Age interpretation,but Big Bang cosmology is used to teach it today so I would think if the Big Bang Theory was replaced by a better theory it could ruin the interpretation.

Do you think you could actually provide an answer to the question, instead of dancing around an actual substantive answer?

Now I know why Trump appeals to you so much. He does the same thing when he's pressed on why he believes something.

same thing when pressed to point to where the "flood layer is" and identify those beasties
only present before, vs those present after that one event.

Where the flood layer is? There are many layers of strata the former world went on for billions of years based on the evidence.But it is funny because science rejects Noah's flood yet they have detected Lucifer's flood they just don't realize it because they are'nt considering what the bible says but Zircon crystals show us evidence of a world wide flood.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Because it has been built on the Big Bang theory.Would'nt it have to be changed to fit the new theory to keep it going? Remember the Steady state theory?What happened to it?

How is Day Age built upon the Big Bang? And then after you explain that, why would it ruin Day Age creationism?

Really, please explain.

Because the Big Bang Theory is used to show that interpretation is right today.Now I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is as old as the Day Age interpretation,but Big Bang cosmology is used to teach it today so I would think if the Big Bang Theory was replaced by a better theory it could ruin the interpretation.

Do you think you could actually provide an answer to the question, instead of dancing around an actual substantive answer?

Now I know why Trump appeals to you so much. He does the same thing when he's pressed on why he believes something.

I have heard Hugh Ross teach it and he mostly uses the Big Bang to show how it fits with the Day Age interpretation,but I think it would change things if the Big Bang Theory was replaced by another theory. It is just something I've wondered about,it is just my own opinion. Did I say something wrong about the way Day Age is taught? Because it is just an honest opinion based on what I've read and seen about the Day Age interpretation but I'm not trying to just make up stuff and I would'nt do it knowingly. I prefer to be as truthful as I can even if I have disagreements with it. I don't like it when the Gap Theory is not properly presented by critics of it,so it is not my intention.

If it's shown that the universe began some other way, it really doesn't change the substance of Day Age Creationism. Ross talks about the Big Bang because it's well accepted as the way the universe began.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: Of course there is.

Theory:


There's more than one meaning of theory.

And as ridiculous as you think the Gap theory is, it's infinitely less ridiculous than atheism.

Work on your reading comprehension / memory and try to avoid playing equivocation fallacy.

there is no gap theory.

No more than there is a loch ness monster. Talking about it doesnt make it exist.

"Gap" may be a theory in some biblical sense. He presents it as science. As such, there is no theory.

Whether or not ACB correctly presents the Gap theory, doesn't change the fact that there is a gap theory.

Gimme an e, gimme a q, gimme an ivo and a c a t i o n.

Rick: "I have an Adam's apple".

Audie:"There's no such thing. That's equivocation".

Audie,

Would you say there is Gap Creationism?

"dont be ridiculous" to the first

to the second, it is ridiculous, but there is such a thing as GC.