Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Morny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Just like above with Morny he does not give evidence but just gives scientistific rhetoric trying to appear smarter,when evidence is what he should be giving.

You're funny.

I like to feed the because as he grows so does the bull crud and everyone can see it for what it is.

Come on... is ACB really a troll?
I mean he's just as adamant about his beliefs as anyone else, but...
I don't know.

Poe's Law

melanie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

melanie wrote:For what it's worth Abel, I don't think the gap theory is as easily dismissed as others may think. I'm not about to get into a debate over it though, being that I'm not 100% sure.
When I first came on here I was a Christian who had quite deliberately shied away from creation theology, theology and/or any doctrine outside of the bible. In that sense I was niave. I had previously seen others at church and bible studies get in very heated theological debates and thought 'they can have it', so I just read the bible and tried to learn the most fundamental lessons especially the words of Jesus.
So when I was a newbie I jumped on a creation thread and stated that we couldn't know for certain but I leaned towards a belief, I stated what I thought and I was informed that it was the gap theory. I had come to that conclusion purely based on my own interpretation. Since then I have read a lot regarding creation theology, I still think no-one can know for certain, some other beliefs have really pipped my interest but I certainly by no means have ruled out the Gap Theory. If I had to place a bet, my money's still there

That's brave of you to be admitting that amongst this crowd, so it seems to me.

If I'm honest, given my knowledge re: various creation positions... I must admit I've never actually studied why it was largely rejected.


That said, I do know I'd reject it based upon what I've read and largely forget. And, if you find a position you're content with then there's little motivation to look further suppose.

Something I'll give the Gap Theory is that it highlights the spiritual forces in the world. (Ephesians 6:12)
I feel such are very real. That, often our struggles in life are due to masterful webs that such have spun within humanity.

I have done brave K. And speaking honestly and openly is not a prerequisite to bravery but more so to authenticity.
Authenticity is being honest regardless of the fall out. Trusting that the fall out is amongst friends who value us regardless.

This crowd I trust, not to entertain me but to hold me to question and value my input, not my creation stance but maybe my spirit.

Of course you can trust this crowd.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Why would the supposed warning be credible, when so much of the rest isnt?

Ahh the rest is credible?

If its not fluffed up, the "Noah" really lived 900 years? Titanium carbide teeth most likely.

900 what? Years based on the gregorian calander, when the gregorian calander didn't exist, maybe it was 900 new moons, who actually knows, again this is down to interpretation.

And really world wide? That is the fluffed up part I was referring to Of course it can be disproved.

Depends on what evidence is available, like with evolution it is a historical science and there may be evidence we have not uncovered or we may have interpreted the current evidence wrongly, I am not saying it is a certainty that it happened, I am just saying that it is feasible and not as outlandish as you make it, there is more than enough water on the surface and underneath the surface to cause a global flood. I doubt that it was global, but you just never know.

I dont see the purpose of your rhetorical "question" at the end there. I will tho say that as one who has
experienced sexual assault Im not cool with it being taken lightly.

I am sorry to hear that has happened to you. Neither does God take his judgements lightly, if he decided to kill off a heap of people, I would imagine that he had no other choice, they would have been beyond redemption. Just like we sentence people to life in prison, because they are beyond redemption.

Of course, you were not merely being rhetorical but veeringway of topic, making it about me, and being utterly unresponsive entirely to my observation that the belief that tornadoes, earthquakes, plagues etc are "god's wrath" is so totally stone age.

I never made it about you, you made it about you (well at least it was never intentional), and again I repeat unlike your examples, Noah told the people before the flood that they should repent and that they would be wiped out, Noah built the ark before the flood and not after. There are major differences between your examples of post attribution and the Biblical example of pre attribution. Everything I have said was refuting what you said and I quote

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

, basically you are saying that God punishing people is stone age thinking, I don't see a problem with God punishing people who are bad, he even warned them before it would happen but they mocked Noah and his family and remained unrepentant.

Are you deliberately misreading me?

I say when so much of the rest is not (credible) , you respond with. "Ah so the rest is?"

I say that the idea that natural disasters are punishment from "god" is stone age thinking and look what you turned that into.

Why do you find it necessary to change the clear meaning of my words into
something utterly different, in order to find error in them?

Kurieuo wrote:

melanie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

melanie wrote:For what it's worth Abel, I don't think the gap theory is as easily dismissed as others may think. I'm not about to get into a debate over it though, being that I'm not 100% sure.
When I first came on here I was a Christian who had quite deliberately shied away from creation theology, theology and/or any doctrine outside of the bible. In that sense I was niave. I had previously seen others at church and bible studies get in very heated theological debates and thought 'they can have it', so I just read the bible and tried to learn the most fundamental lessons especially the words of Jesus.
So when I was a newbie I jumped on a creation thread and stated that we couldn't know for certain but I leaned towards a belief, I stated what I thought and I was informed that it was the gap theory. I had come to that conclusion purely based on my own interpretation. Since then I have read a lot regarding creation theology, I still think no-one can know for certain, some other beliefs have really pipped my interest but I certainly by no means have ruled out the Gap Theory. If I had to place a bet, my money's still there

That's brave of you to be admitting that amongst this crowd, so it seems to me.

If I'm honest, given my knowledge re: various creation positions... I must admit I've never actually studied why it was largely rejected.


That said, I do know I'd reject it based upon what I've read and largely forget. And, if you find a position you're content with then there's little motivation to look further suppose.

Something I'll give the Gap Theory is that it highlights the spiritual forces in the world. (Ephesians 6:12)
I feel such are very real. That, often our struggles in life are due to masterful webs that such have spun within humanity.

I have done brave K. And speaking honestly and openly is not a prerequisite to bravery but more so to authenticity.
Authenticity is being honest regardless of the fall out. Trusting that the fall out is amongst friends who value us regardless.

This crowd I trust, not to entertain me but to hold me to question and value my input, not my creation stance but maybe my spirit.

Of course you can trust this crowd.

You do realise your part of the crowd don't you?

Every so often you here scientists or news reports that we'll be able to live to 1000 years.
Personally, all it would take is some genetic change/mutation or the like I'd think.

Once geneticists or scientists get a better handle on it, then we could possibly reverse the effects of whatever may have happened.
If the Biblical accounting is correct, then I'd look for some dominant gene on the male side.

But either way, I don't think it implausible that we lived/can live a lot longer.
Look at the elves. They often have long lifespans.

Philip wrote:ACB, why do you think virtually no current evangelical Hebrew scholar believes the wording of Genesis can support the Gap Theory? These are people who believe the text is true, that it's God's Word, who have studied it to an exhaustive scholar's depth, and yet they overwhelmingly say the text does not and cannot support Gap Theory. It sounds to me like you like it because you think it solves problems and matches the evidences. But the scholars and theologians overwhelmingly reject that. Doesn't that at least make you wonder why that's the case?

Actually, Phillip, probably the greatest criticism of gap creationism (I like to call it ruin/reconstruction creationism), is that there was no death before the fall based on Romans 5:12. There are many scholars who do believe in ruin/reconstruction creationism though.

I happen to believe that there was indeed death before the fall, just not human death. I will explain it this way.

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Jesus calls Lucifer, "prince of this world" twice, as a double witness. What did Lucifer do to receive such a title from our Lord?

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Paul calls Lucifer, "the god of this world". What did Lucifer do to deserve such a title from Paul?

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

In order for Lucifer to exalt a throne, he first had to have a throne to exalt. A throne indicates a place of rule and dominion, as well as a kingdom to rule over. Since Heaven is God's throne:

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

What place is left then? The earth is left. Satan must have had a throne on the earth before he rebelled against God. This would explain how he got his claim to earth and his titles and Jesus does not dispute that with Lucifer when He is being tempted in the desert, when Lucifer claims all kingdoms of the world are his. The earth before Genesis 1:2 was Lucifer’s original domain. I believe, it was part of his original commission from God. Because when we meet him in Genesis, he is already the serpent in opposition to God.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

The above verses claims Lucifer had the power of death and it also claims that the devil sinned from the beginning. But according to Ezekiel 28, Lucifer was created perfect in the beginning. Evidently he was not created as a sinful being because that would make God the author of sin. Lucifer was evidently created perfect and sinned sometime later. What was this sin from the beginning? It does not say anything about it in Genesis, unless of course there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. It is my opinion that Lucifer was given the power of death by God. The fossil record shows that creatures began to die a long time ago on our planet, which for me is evidence of the corruption of the first age, due to Lucifer's rebellion. Lucifer started to cause things to die that God created because he had the power of death. It does not say how long Lucifer's rebellion lasted but if we base evidence of it on the fossil record, the rebellion lasted a long time before God finally destroyed that age.

I would also add, the New Testaments use of the Greek word "aion" or "eon" specifically used in the passages where it speaks of "this age" and 'the coming age" of which there is a constant distinction. Aion = an age, or age-time, the duration of which may be indefinite, and may be limited or extended as the context of each occurrence may demand.

"This Age" is mentioned in the following scriptures: Matt 13:24-30, Matt 13:36-43, Mark 4:19, Mark 10:30, Rom 12:2, 1 Cor 2:8, 2 Cor 4:4, Gal 1:4, Eph 2:2, 2Tim 4:10, Tit 2:12. I believe all these passages can be referenced by 2Pet 3:7, "the heavens and earth which are now".

"The Coming Age" is mentioned in the following scriptures: Matt 13:39, 40, 49; Matt 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30, Luke 20:35, 1 Cor 15:23, Tit 2:13. I believe all these passages can be referenced by 2Pet 3:13, "the new heavens and a new earth".

I understand that many consider 2 Pet 3: 5-6 is speaking about Noah's flood but I just do not see that there but then, I believe that Noah's flood was local and not worldwide. I see instead, "the heavens and earth which used to be" and they were destroyed. I certainly believe that Peter is speaking about Noah in the previous chapter, where he says:

2Pet 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Peter does not refer to the old world as "the world that then was" in chapter 2, as he does in chapter 3. He refers to it as the "old" world or ancient world. If Peter had referred to it in chapter 3 as the old or ancient world, then that would point more to the flood being actually Noah's flood and being more than likely being a worldwide flood. I happen to believe that there were two floods; one global flood that destroyed the age and a local flood mentioned in Gen 6 that destroyed the fallen angels that interbred with humans.

One last point. There are other gaps of time in scripture, where events within verses are separated by long periods of time.

Here's an example:

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

Luke 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.


Jesus stopped reading right in the middle of a verse and sat down. How many time has anyone been to a church where the Bible is being read and the reader stops in the middle of a verse and does not continue?

This is where he stopped reading, in the middle of verse 2 in Isaiah 61:

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Isaiah 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

But this part of the prophecy was not then to be fulfilled. As far as He had read, He could truly say, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." But He could not have said "This day is this Scripture fulfilled", had He not "closed the book", but gone on to read the next line. And yet, in the A.V. and all other versions, there is only a comma between the two lines, while there is a period of nearly 2,000 years between the two statements. Certainly a huge "gap of time", which continues to increase.

Here are the other passages where there are gaps of time:

Gen 1 between verses 1 and 2
Ps. 22, between verses 21 and 22.
Ps. 118, in the middle of verse 22.
Isa. 9:6, after the first clause.
Isa. 53, in the middle of verse 10.
Isa. 61, in the middle of verse 2 (see above).
Lam. 4, between verses 21 and 22.
Dan. 9, between verses 26 and 27.
Dan. 11, between verses 20 and 21.
Hos. 2, between verses 13 and 14.
Hos. 3, between verses 4 and 5.
Amos 9, between verses 10 and 11.
Micah 5, between verses 2 and 3.
Hab. 2, between verses 13 and 14.
Zeph. 3, between verses 7 and 8.
Matt. 10, in the middle of verse 23.
Matt. 12, in the middle of verse 20.
Luke 1, between verses 31 and 32.
Luke 21, in the middle of verse 24.
John 1, between verses 5 and 6.
1Pet. 1, in the middle of verse 11.
Rev. 12, between verses 5 and 6.

So personally, I find the ruin/reconstruction creation stance to be the most comprehensive of the creation stances. Not that there isn't elements of truth in the others but I find that the "Gap" covers the explanation of verses in the Bible that other creation stances do not have an answer for.

Here's professor John Lennox speaking about those seven days:

Was the Earth Created in Seven Days?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... seven+days

melanie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

melanie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

melanie wrote:For what it's worth Abel, I don't think the gap theory is as easily dismissed as others may think. I'm not about to get into a debate over it though, being that I'm not 100% sure.
When I first came on here I was a Christian who had quite deliberately shied away from creation theology, theology and/or any doctrine outside of the bible. In that sense I was niave. I had previously seen others at church and bible studies get in very heated theological debates and thought 'they can have it', so I just read the bible and tried to learn the most fundamental lessons especially the words of Jesus.
So when I was a newbie I jumped on a creation thread and stated that we couldn't know for certain but I leaned towards a belief, I stated what I thought and I was informed that it was the gap theory. I had come to that conclusion purely based on my own interpretation. Since then I have read a lot regarding creation theology, I still think no-one can know for certain, some other beliefs have really pipped my interest but I certainly by no means have ruled out the Gap Theory. If I had to place a bet, my money's still there

That's brave of you to be admitting that amongst this crowd, so it seems to me.

If I'm honest, given my knowledge re: various creation positions... I must admit I've never actually studied why it was largely rejected.


That said, I do know I'd reject it based upon what I've read and largely forget. And, if you find a position you're content with then there's little motivation to look further suppose.

Something I'll give the Gap Theory is that it highlights the spiritual forces in the world. (Ephesians 6:12)
I feel such are very real. That, often our struggles in life are due to masterful webs that such have spun within humanity.

I have done brave K. And speaking honestly and openly is not a prerequisite to bravery but more so to authenticity.
Authenticity is being honest regardless of the fall out. Trusting that the fall out is amongst friends who value us regardless.

This crowd I trust, not to entertain me but to hold me to question and value my input, not my creation stance but maybe my spirit.

Of course you can trust this crowd.

You do realise your part of the crowd don't you?

I'm just sayin, if I can't speak freely, offend, be a pain in someone's ass then lets just assimilate. Globalism anyone?? Hehe
Individualism.

I don't want to be a part of the crowd. But... resistance is futile. You know that right?

melanie wrote:

Everyone loves Melanie. So good to have something we all agree on.

Melane: I'm just sayin, if I can't speak freely, offend, be a pain in someone's *** then lets just assimilate.

If you can't do that, then certainly don't get married! (a caution to Audie )

Of course, none of us are ever a pain in the *** to our spouses, right? RIGHT???!!! And they never tell us that we are...RIGHT??? My wife is so polite she often responds to me by saying, "Yes, SIR!!!" Yet perhaps with just a slight touch of sarcasm.

I must say I have given those who reject the gap theory a chance to explain 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and nobody has yet explained how you can make Noah's flood fit here knowing that only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth that were of old,I think you are making Noah's flood fit here mostly out of pride instead of looking at the details.2nd Peter 3:3-7 clearly reveal a gap between the former world that perished in water after the heavens and earth were flooded and this world that will be destroyed by fire one day.
Sorry but insults and rude attitudes do not sway me,the word does.I can handle insults if I'm right and you're wrong.

Philip wrote:Of course, none of us are ever a pain in the *** to our spouses, right? RIGHT???!!! And they never tell us that we are...RIGHT??? My wife is so polite she often responds to me by saying, "Yes, SIR!!!" Yet perhaps with just a slight touch of sarcasm.

I will readily admit that my marriage did not last 99%
because I was impossible to live with.

Not that anyone here would know why I was like that or whether things are different with me now.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:Of course, none of us are ever a pain in the *** to our spouses, right? RIGHT???!!! And they never tell us that we are...RIGHT??? My wife is so polite she often responds to me by saying, "Yes, SIR!!!" Yet perhaps with just a slight touch of sarcasm.

I will readily admit that my marriage did not last 99%
because I was impossible to live with.

Not that anyone here would know why I was like that or whether things are different with me now.

I can see where you're coming from possibly. I thought my marriage was that way too, but it turns out I was to blame for a lot of what happened and it wasn't so one-side as I'd thought. 99% is probably high, Audie.