Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:Katabole: Minorities should never automatically considered false. However, one of the reasons for becoming a minority is that a view has been carefully considered and found wanting. Gap Theory, like other Creationist theories, depends primarily on belief in a literal interpretation of the bible, a belief I do not hold. I don't think Gap Theory is any wronger than any of the others, nor that any of the others are more correct.

Regarding Genesis 2, I do not believe this is intended to be taken literally, and in fact, it is now to be rejected, in line with Crotchet's views about laws above, as no longer applicable. It was written to illustrate woman's proper subservience to, and dependence on, man, which had some social and evolutionary relevance 6000 years ago, but is no longer acceptable.

Regarding Hebrews 11, St Paul was bang on. Most scientists today do consider that the Universe derived from the invisible. The development of life, which Paul was not referring to, derived from what was there already. It still does.

hughfarey wrote:Thank you all for your recent replies.

Crotchet: My information about the 1500 kinds of animals in the ark comes from the Ark Encounter website, a group of Young Earth Creationists like yourself. And your rather convoluted explanation of why the laws of the Old Testament do not apply to us, even though Jesus personally announced that he wasn't going to change any of it, is an interesting interpretation - indeed, it is not far from my own interpretation - but it is an interpretation directly contradictory to the actual words of Jesus. It is interesting that interpretations contradicting the exact words of the bible are permitted to you, but not to me.

Katabole: Minorities should never automatically considered false. However, one of the reasons for becoming a minority is that a view has been carefully considered and found wanting. Gap Theory, like other Creationist theories, depends primarily on belief in a literal interpretation of the bible, a belief I do not hold. I don't think Gap Theory is any wronger than any of the others, nor that any of the others are more correct.

Regarding Genesis 2, I do not believe this is intended to be taken literally, and in fact, it is now to be rejected, in line with Crotchet's views about laws above, as no longer applicable. It was written to illustrate woman's proper subservience to, and dependence on, man, which had some social and evolutionary relevance 6000 years ago, but is no longer acceptable.

Regarding Hebrews 11, St Paul was bang on. Most scientists today do consider that the Universe derived from the invisible. The development of life, which Paul was not referring to, derived from what was there already. It still does.

Abelcainsbrother: You are simply making the same unsubstantiated assertions as before. You think that the evidence supports gap theory better than evolution. I disagree. You think that the fossil record doesn't demonstrate evolution. I disagree. You claim there is other evidence for the gap theory. I disagree. You believe that if gap theory was given a fair hearing it would be seen as more believable and appealing than evolution. I think it has been given a fair hearing and I disagree. The only evidence for any of your assertions you have given is related to a 'world wide drought. The only place I have been able to examine this evidence is at kjvbible.org, but I have examined the evidence presented and find it unsatisfactory.

What all these responses to my comment illustrate best is that no-one should be certain that their own personal interpretation of the bible is correct, or even reasonable. The greatest differences between different interpretations are not between Creationist and Evolutionist views, but among Creationists themselves. Whereas evolutionists, and cosmogenists, all believe roughly the same thing, the various Creationist views are wholly incompatible with each other. By their own words in these last few weeks, even those creationists who adhere most closely to the original theme of this site have demonstrated that there can be no literal reading of the words of the bible, and that therefore, any recourse to the truth merely from the literal words alone cannot be justified.

abelcainsbrother wrote:There is no way you could convince people that based on the fossils that show the kinds of life that lived that by examining or looking at what kind of life they show that this life was evolving,no matter what fossil we showed.

Take say a trilobite,there is nothing about any trilobite that would lead anybody to believe they were evolving.This is because the evidence has been looked at all wrong and the kinds of life we see based on the fossils was simply the life that once lived in the former world up until they died and the former world perished.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:There is no way you could convince people that based on the fossils that show the kinds of life that lived that by examining or looking at what kind of life they show that this life was evolving,no matter what fossil we showed.

Actually, fossil progression is one of the clearest evidences for evolution and in practice does convince people that it must be correct.

Take say a trilobite,there is nothing about any trilobite that would lead anybody to believe they were evolving.This is because the evidence has been looked at all wrong and the kinds of life we see based on the fossils was simply the life that once lived in the former world up until they died and the former world perished.

Not at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Trilobites, being marine, are particularly well fossilised, and show almost every aspect of evolution very well. Divergence into many different species, sporadic extinction, adaptation to different environments, and changes in morphology over a period of 300 million years or so are well demonstrated. These all coordinate well with the tectonic changes on the earth over the same time scale, and help to show that continuous change, not "a lost world that perished" has typified earth history.

Crotchet: Your interpretation of which bits of the Old Testament (including the Ten Commandments, it seems) are valid today in the light of Christ is interesting, and very divergent from any literal reading. My interpretation is also very divergent from literalism, especially when dealing with the cosmology and biology. My interpretation is supported by copious paleontological and scientific evidence. What supports your interpretation?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Really? Here look at a trilobite and please explain what makes you say it was evolving.

And yes there are different species of trilobite's but they were fully formed,had eyes,a nervous system and digestive system.

A former world fits the evidence better, and this applies to any fossils found also.

There is nothing about any of them that would lead a person to think it was evolving.There is no way to tell by looking at the many trilobite fossils and coming to the conclusion they were evolving.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Really? Here look at a trilobite and please explain what makes you say it was evolving.

No. Look at a hundred trilobites from successive strata, and notice how each level shows trilobites with slight differences from the one above and the one below.

And yes there are different species of trilobite's but they were fully formed,had eyes,a nervous system and digestive system.

You really don't understand what is meant by a transitional stage, do you? Of course every animal is fully formed. I do not understand what you imagine a transitional stage might look like.

A former world fits the evidence better, and this applies to any fossils found also.

So you keep saying, but it's not true.

There is nothing about any of them that would lead a person to think it was evolving.There is no way to tell by looking at the many trilobite fossils and coming to the conclusion they were evolving.

You're fighting a lone corner here, abelcainsbrother, and good for you. You are unlikely to win me, or indeed any of your fellow literalists, to your point of view by your style of argument, but it's good to have the courage of one's convictions.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:There is no way you could convince people that based on the fossils that show the kinds of life that lived that by examining or looking at what kind of life they show that this life was evolving,no matter what fossil we showed.

Actually, fossil progression is one of the clearest evidences for evolution and in practice does convince people that it must be correct.

Take say a trilobite,there is nothing about any trilobite that would lead anybody to believe they were evolving.This is because the evidence has been looked at all wrong and the kinds of life we see based on the fossils was simply the life that once lived in the former world up until they died and the former world perished.

Not at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Trilobites, being marine, are particularly well fossilised, and show almost every aspect of evolution very well. Divergence into many different species, sporadic extinction, adaptation to different environments, and changes in morphology over a period of 300 million years or so are well demonstrated. These all coordinate well with the tectonic changes on the earth over the same time scale, and help to show that continuous change, not "a lost world that perished" has typified earth history.

Crotchet: Your interpretation of which bits of the Old Testament (including the Ten Commandments, it seems) are valid today in the light of Christ is interesting, and very divergent from any literal reading. My interpretation is also very divergent from literalism, especially when dealing with the cosmology and biology. My interpretation is supported by copious paleontological and scientific evidence. What supports your interpretation?

abelcainsbrother wrote:I'm just presenting this hypothesis and then giving evidence

and I've only been using fossils for evidence and you agree the fossils all show fully formed creatures,just as I said so therefore you cannot use any fossil for evidence for evolution.

A former lost world with different life in it fits the fossil evidence better. You are just ignoring evidence that better confirms a former world and you must use evolution imagination when looking at the fossils because no fossils found show any evidence this life was evolving.

I have not had to get into other evidence either and I've already given more evidence than you have or can.

Because any fossil we look at will show the same thing,no reason to believe they were evolving and regardless of how evolutionists have grouped them together with evolution imagination to make it seem like they were evolving.

I just removed all of the fossil evidence away from evolution and am just teaching the very same thing William Buckland believed and taught as a geologist/ paleontologist.This is what William Buckland taught at Oxford in the early 1800' s.He rejected evolution too.This is why the Gap Theory became so popular in the church and why it was revived by Thomas Chalmers,because the scientific evidence confirmed it and it still does today if you look at the evidence from a former world perspective instead of an evolution perspective. Try it, remove evolution from your mind and then look at the evidence from a former lost world perspective instead.

crotchet1949 wrote:My 'interpretation' is based on Matthew 5 and 22:36 - 41.

crochet1949 wrote:We ARE to teach our kids right from wrong.

But obeying those [the ten commandments] will NOT secure our salvation.