Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

Just call me Lucy, to your Charlie Brown.

You big meany! Bring back the KLOWN!

He needs the helmet to protect that big soft head of his.

I think this thread just sank into a big soft pile; from whence thou cometh, even there shalt thou return, from ashes to ashes, and all that.

Audie wrote:I think this thread just sank into a big soft pile; from whence thou cometh, even there shalt thou return, from ashes to ashes, and all that.

Evolution threads always do, some people have an emotional attachment to their creation stance and usually these threads just descend into jokes because it better than all the "serious" conversations.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:I think this thread just sank into a big soft pile; from whence thou cometh, even there shalt thou return, from ashes to ashes, and all that.

Evolution threads always do, some people have an emotional attachment to their creation stance and usually these threads just descend into jokes because it better than all the "serious" conversations.

"Serious" in quotation marks, yes.

I would be so interested if one of the ones who says evolution is false would ever actually come up with something serious minded to say. Any theory can use some vigorous testing but we never see anything like that. Just more "how come there are still monkeys" level silliness.

So yeah, may as well tell jokes.

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:I think this thread just sank into a big soft pile; from whence thou cometh, even there shalt thou return, from ashes to ashes, and all that.

Evolution threads always do, some people have an emotional attachment to their creation stance and usually these threads just descend into jokes because it better than all the "serious" conversations.

"Serious" in quotation marks, yes.

I would be so interested if one of the ones who says evolution is false would ever actually come up with something serious minded to say. Any theory can use some vigorous testing but we never see anything like that. Just more "how come there are still monkeys" level silliness.

So yeah, may as well tell jokes.

Well K, Neo, Morny and Pro are having a serious conversation at the moment, it is nice when everyone is respectful. I have a lot of respect for K and others on this board.

Audie 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

I suppose its reasonable to theorize about the many gaps in the Bible.

There is, however, no "gap theory" if the subject involves science.
There are certain reasonable requirements for a scientific theory.
Among these are a large body of data that is explained by the theory.

Another very reasonable requirement is that the evidence must consistently support
the theory- ie, that there must be no data that disproves the theory.

This thing being called a gap theory is quite incoherent, but one clear detail is world wide flood,
quite recently.

There was no such flood. That being the case, there is no gap theory.

A review of the various ways a flood hypothesis is disproved is outside the scope of this post.

Audie if you read " On the origin of species"written in 1859 by Charles Darwin you would see the gap theory was believed before Darwin wrote his book,but I don't think you read it to see Darwin was well aware of the gap theory and was trying to thwart it.I guess you don't believe me and won't read it to see for yourself.

The gap theory was being preached and taught in christian churches at least about 50-60 years before Darwin wrote his book and evolution became so popular but it goes back in the church atleast 500 years the best we can tell based on St Augastine's writings and this was long before evolution and the geological discoveries that was proving the gap theory true when discoveries were made showing the earth was old and all of the fossil evidence of a perished former world,an old earth was discovered by christians before evolution became so popular and this evidence was hyjacked away and made to fit into evolution once it became popular.If you ignore evidence I give what do you base the truth on?

Also I have already given clear evidence for global floods and what I said is true and you should know it,you know I cannot change your mind if you refuse to look at the evidence I've given.

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

Well with me I was very slow to accept the gap theory it took me awhile.I first heard the term "Lucifer's flood" and had never heard of it and I discounted it for awhile and did not know it had anything to do with the gap theory at that time,it was a preacher\teacher teaching about angels and demons and where demons came from and the gap theory was not mentioned.

I was just researching Lucifer's flood trying to find out as much as I could about it ,and I accepted it before I knew about the gap theory,it was awhile longer,years later that I learned of the gap theory and at first I read what AIG and other creation ministries said about it and believed what they said about it about how wrong it is,I believed them at first until I actually started looking into the gap theory and I realized the critics were slandering the gap theory and that they were really ignorant about it based on what they said.

I knew they did not even really know about it like they made it seem.I then realized that they were slandering gap theory brothers in Christ and ignoring them and even hindering them from getting the truth out about the gap theory.I believe several gap theorists for years did everything they could to get the truth out but were ignored and to the point that they gave up trying to get the truth out,they had refuted everything critics of it had said too.This is why the gap theory is least known about,the other creation ministries had a platform to get their theory out there and ignored and in some cases hindered the truth about it.

But popularity does not make their creation theory more true.

Don't give up on the gap theory and learn how to defend it biblically first,then take a look at scientific discoveries and you'll see evidence for it looking at it from a former world that perished perspective.True science confirms the bible true always has and it will continue,there is no conflict with true science and the gap theory,scientific theories are another thing.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:I think this thread just sank into a big soft pile; from whence thou cometh, even there shalt thou return, from ashes to ashes, and all that.

Evolution threads always do, some people have an emotional attachment to their creation stance and usually these threads just descend into jokes because it better than all the "serious" conversations.

"Serious" in quotation marks, yes.

I would be so interested if one of the ones who says evolution is false would ever actually come up with something serious minded to say. Any theory can use some vigorous testing but we never see anything like that. Just more "how come there are still monkeys" level silliness.

So yeah, may as well tell jokes.

Well K, Neo, Morny and Pro are having a serious conversation at the moment, it is nice when everyone is respectful. I have a lot of respect for K and others on this board.

Hmm... I don't get it.
How come there are still monkeys if we evolved from them?

If you think the evidence for an old earth was discovered because of evolution science you are wrong.The scientific evidence for an old earth was discovered before Charles Darwin wrote his book in 1859 and the evidence challenged Christians who thought the bible taught the earth was young,but Christians did not shun science despite their interpretation and they searched and discovered the gap theory and realized the scientific evidence in geology,etc were confirming it true.Many say they made the science fit,but they didn't which is why they had to seek and search and found the gap theory that had been in the church along time,then evolution became so popular and they put this evidence into evolution,do not let anybody lead you wrong,modern science was started by Christians.There were many scientific discoveries that challenged Christians and their interpretations like Galileo,etc.They did not chunk out their bible or faith in the Lord.

If evolution is true then why have we never found a specimen that is st the in betwen stage? Was Neathandral man evolved from apes? Are we evolved from them?
weren't/aren't crocodiles dinosaurs?

ToE has been all I have known, al I have been taught really. It is widely accepted as fact yet remains a theory.

The little I have read about the gsp theory has got my interest.

Storyteller wrote:If evolution is true then why have we never found a specimen that is st the in betwen stage? Was Neathandral man evolved from apes? Are we evolved from them?
weren't/aren't crocodiles dinosaurs?

ToE has been all I have known, al I have been taught really. It is widely accepted as fact yet remains a theory.

The little I have read about the gsp theory has got my interest.

There certainly is no shortage of organism, living and extinct, that demonstrate intermediate between this and that.

You no doubt know that flower petals, like cactus spines, are modified leaves. Look up a photo of a "peace lilly". The flower is a simple one-leaf affair. A rose uses several leaves. A poinsettia has leaves that turn from green to red to make a" flower" while needed, then they turn green again.

A famously obvious intermediate is the Archaeopteryx. Little dinosaur or bird? Long tail like a dino,
teeth, feet not adapted to perching. But it has obvious feathers, obvious wings. What bird has teeth, what
reptile has feathers?

The crocodilians are members of the order Archosaura ( did I spell it right)
as were dinosaurs, but they diverged early and are not descended from dinosaurs the way
birds are.

Sorry you didnt receive much or good schooling in science.
Its a problem. Theory should never be taught as fact, and it should
never be suggested that "just a theory" is a criticism of a weakness.

Theory is as good as it gets in science. Einstein's theory of relativity, say.

Oh and no, we're not evolved from Neanderthal.

There is a wonderful amount of quality literature on evolution and deep time.
I hope you will put some time into it. Find pictures of life from, say,
the Silurian or the Permian, and wonder!

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:I think this thread just sank into a big soft pile; from whence thou cometh, even there shalt thou return, from ashes to ashes, and all that.

Evolution threads always do, some people have an emotional attachment to their creation stance and usually these threads just descend into jokes because it better than all the "serious" conversations.

"Serious" in quotation marks, yes.

I would be so interested if one of the ones who says evolution is false would ever actually come up with something serious minded to say. Any theory can use some vigorous testing but we never see anything like that. Just more "how come there are still monkeys" level silliness.

So yeah, may as well tell jokes.

Well K, Neo, Morny and Pro are having a serious conversation at the moment, it is nice when everyone is respectful. I have a lot of respect for K and others on this board.

Hmm... I don't get it.
How come there are still monkeys if we evolved from them?

How come there are still yecs despite the 19th
century having passed, taking with it the unreconstructed American Indians,
the pony express and the stage coach?

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:If evolution is true then why have we never found a specimen that is st the in betwen stage? Was Neathandral man evolved from apes? Are we evolved from them?
weren't/aren't crocodiles dinosaurs?

ToE has been all I have known, al I have been taught really. It is widely accepted as fact yet remains a theory.

The little I have read about the gsp theory has got my interest.

There certainly is no shortage of organism, living and extinct, that demonstrate intermediate between this and that.

You no doubt know that flower petals, like cactus spines, are modified leaves. Look up a photo of a "peace lilly". The flower is a simple one-leaf affair. A rose uses several leaves. A poinsettia has leaves that turn from green to red to make a" flower" while needed, then they turn green again.

A famously obvious intermediate is the Archaeopteryx. Little dinosaur or bird? Long tail like a dino,
teeth, feet not adapted to perching. But it has obvious feathers, obvious wings. What bird has teeth, what
reptile has feathers?

The crocodilians are members of the order Archosaura ( did I spell it right)
as were dinosaurs, but they diverged early and are not descended from dinosaurs the way
birds are.

Sorry you didnt receive much or good schooling in science.
Its a problem. Theory should never be taught as fact, and it should
never be suggested that "just a theory" is a criticism of a weakness.

Theory is as good as it gets in science. Einstein's theory of relativity, say.

Oh and no, we're not evolved from Neanderthal.

There is a wonderful amount of quality literature on evolution and deep time.
I hope you will put some time into it. Find pictures of life from, say,
the Silurian or the Permian, and wonder!

Hi Audie

Thanks for your suggestions, I will definitely look into them. I am intensley curious and I question everything. I am open to the fact that I may be wrong in what I believe but so far, it`s the thing that fits the best, for me. I do believe in a Creator. In God and I do believe in Jesus being my Saviour, I just need to figure out all the pieces of the jigsaw.

I know my knowledge is lacking in a lot of areas which is why this forum is a Godsend (and I deliberately chose that word) for me. Reading opposing views expressed intelligently and reading the debates over issues like this is very informative.
I find your arguments very good, you raise some very interesting points.

Can I ask you a question?

Do you believe that God might exist, or do you believe He can`t?

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:If evolution is true then why have we never found a specimen that is st the in betwen stage? Was Neathandral man evolved from apes? Are we evolved from them?
weren't/aren't crocodiles dinosaurs?

ToE has been all I have known, al I have been taught really. It is widely accepted as fact yet remains a theory.

The little I have read about the gsp theory has got my interest.

There certainly is no shortage of organism, living and extinct, that demonstrate intermediate between this and that.

You no doubt know that flower petals, like cactus spines, are modified leaves. Look up a photo of a "peace lilly". The flower is a simple one-leaf affair. A rose uses several leaves. A poinsettia has leaves that turn from green to red to make a" flower" while needed, then they turn green again.

A famously obvious intermediate is the Archaeopteryx. Little dinosaur or bird? Long tail like a dino,
teeth, feet not adapted to perching. But it has obvious feathers, obvious wings. What bird has teeth, what
reptile has feathers?

The crocodilians are members of the order Archosaura ( did I spell it right)
as were dinosaurs, but they diverged early and are not descended from dinosaurs the way
birds are.

Sorry you didnt receive much or good schooling in science.
Its a problem. Theory should never be taught as fact, and it should
never be suggested that "just a theory" is a criticism of a weakness.

Theory is as good as it gets in science. Einstein's theory of relativity, say.

Oh and no, we're not evolved from Neanderthal.

There is a wonderful amount of quality literature on evolution and deep time.
I hope you will put some time into it. Find pictures of life from, say,
the Silurian or the Permian, and wonder!

Hi Audie

Thanks for your suggestions, I will definitely look into them. I am intensley curious and I question everything. I am open to the fact that I may be wrong in what I believe but so far, it`s the thing that fits the best, for me. I do believe in a Creator. In God and I do believe in Jesus being my Saviour, I just need to figure out all the pieces of the jigsaw.

I know my knowledge is lacking in a lot of areas which is why this forum is a Godsend (and I deliberately chose that word) for me. Reading opposing views expressed intelligently and reading the debates over issues like this is very informative.
I find your arguments very good, you raise some very interesting points.

Can I ask you a question?

Do you believe that God might exist, or do you believe He can`t?

H Story

Of course (a) god may exist. In this extremely weird universe,
that seems as reasonable as other things.

I doubt there is, and if there is I much more doubt its the one
the bible talks about.

if there is a god who started up the universe-if in fact there was a "start" or a before, or what things were like "before" who knows. Our local philosophers present that they can prove god, and no doubt they are comtent.

I've a thought on origin of life with or without god but Im too sick for it now.

Call me Annette

I hope you feel better soon (((((Audie))))))

When you feel up to it I`d like to discuss this some more with you, I`m interested in what you think and why.

So you accept the possibility of God but think if He exists it isn`t as the God in the Bible, why not?