Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:I'll be upfront.If you choose to accept the Gap Theory then you must reject how science observes the evidence in the earth,because the evidence is proof that a former world existed that perished and has nothing to do with life evolving.But if you choose to go with science all built around and based on evolution then you are accepting science all based on evolution.You do have to choose.Science or the Gap theory interpretation.We have a lost world nobody knows about because of evolution and it was a Lord of the rings type world too if we look at and examine the fossils.

ACB,

Science doesn't observe anything. Scientists use the scientific method to interpret the evidence in nature. There are plenty of scientists that see the evidence as not supporting the theory of evolution. Since I'm familiar with Reasons.org, I'll use them as an example. Reasons has scientists on their staff that don't believe the evidence shows molecules to man.

But let me get this straight...in order to accept the Gap Theory, we must dismiss science?

So, let's see if I'm accurate...if I choose to believe the Gap theory, I must dismiss science, AND completely mangle the Hebrew text in the OT?
Is that what it takes to be a Gap Theorist?

Abel: all the rest of science that is all based on evolution?

Um, NO, the REST of science is NOT based upon evolution! NOT TO MENTION: Scientific arguments about evolution are really an argument about some process that supposedly began to take place nearly a billion years after earth came into existence. Think about that: a BILLION years before ANY life appeared. And GAP theory will never be widely accepted, you might as well give it up. The theologians and ancient Hebrew scholars, almost to a one, dismiss it! You've got to read it into the Biblical text, and you can't get around the limitations demanded by ancient Hebrew grammar structure. And the scientists overwhelmingly reject such a possibility. VERY few Christians accept this theory. So, Abel, quit torturing yourself, it just ain't gonna be accepted. And even IF it were true, it's like (amongst Christians) the issues surrounding the age of the earth and universe - good and smart people continuously argue over both the science and the Scriptural interpretations involved. If you think that acceptance of GAP Theory is going to be important to people taking Scripture seriously, only scholars of a century ago might have entertained such a fantasy. Not to mention that what you assert, for acceptance - even amongst Christians - is that 1) the Scriptural evidence for it would need to be extremely convincing, and those Christian scholars and theologians we all pay close attention to would have to be on board and in significant numbers; 2) Christians ALSO pay attention to what scientific opinion is - even if they don't necessarily buy into every nuance of what most scientists believe - meaning, Christians would expect significant scientific evidences that point toward a former world, to be touted by at least a goodly percentage of scientists in appropriate disciplines. After how many centuries of scientific analysis and theological scholarship will we have to await a 180-degree about face on Gap Theory? Give it up!

You might want to do what I finally did, in the YEC vs. OEC wars - and that is, I have concluded it's wasted time, energy and breath on a subject that is irrelevant. Because, before God began speaking to Adam, there's really not anything critical for us to understand. The portions of Scripture revealing what came before Adam and HOW are the briefest of sketches. Why, because those details are almost like reading a book's introductory chapter: "It was a beautiful day, not a cloud in the sky, and ever so quiet, peaceful. A cool, crisp breeze fluttered the leaves on the trees. And then a tall man appeared and he began to speak in a loud voice." But, the parallel, NOTHING of importance, in my fictional novel's beginning, happens until a character appears and begins to speak, and later various drama unfolds. The importance of the novel has nothing to do with the weather and tranquility preceding the arrival of the protagonist of my story. It's irrelevant. Kinda like GAP Theory and YEC vs. OEC. People debate, ad nausem, the particulars of the irrelevant while often ignoring what truly matters! And until God creates Adam and they begin interacting, well, it's mostly irrelevant! And our obsessions over whatever irrelevant thing, no matter what it is, can be harmful and an enormous waste of our time.

Just try to imagine this in your mind.
Who is your favorite Christian apologist out there? John Lennox? William Lane Craig? Ken Ham?,etc

It makes no difference who we pick but let's go with Ken Ham

OK Ken Ham is in a debate against an evolutionist.Pick anybody you choose but think an expert in evolution.

But instead of Ken Ham using young earth creationism,he is using the Gap theory instead.

Ken Ham challenges the evolutionist to show us scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves.The evolutionist brings out viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,rats,etc and presents this as evidence and explains this is evidence that life evolves.

Ken Ham says hold up! Let's look at this evidence closely and goes on to explain that in every case of evidence presented used as evidence life evolves,it is only demonstrating what plant and animal breeders knew about thousands of years before Charles Darwin and that is that life can adapt or that there is variations in reproduction,then gives examples sush as dogs and roses and explains that what science is using as evidence life evolves? Is just "kinds producing after their kinds" like it says in Genesis.

OK then Ken Ham starts talking about a former world that existed that perished and gives biblical scripture to back it up and proposes that the evidence in the earth has been looked at all wrong,it has all been looked at from an evolution point of view that as you can see has never been demonstrated.

Then on a slide starts showing fossils and says these are the kinds of life that lived in the former world and he has slides showing fossils of trilobite's,dinosaurs,hominids,wooly mammoths,mastadons,etc and on and on shows example after example of the life that lived in the former world.

Unless the evolutionist could actually produce evidence that demonstrates life evolves Ken Ham would win and then Ken Ham presented the gospel.Just imagine that!

Ken Ham teaching the Gap Theory! Now I can die knowing I've heard everything!

ACB,

You DO have quite an imagination...
I don't know what's more unrealistic...
1) Ken Ham teaching The Gap Theory

Or

2) there actually being scripture that backs up The Gap Theory.

And I think we all know where Ken's gap is!

Philip wrote:

Abel: all the rest of science that is all based on evolution?

Um, NO, the REST of science is NOT based upon evolution! NOT TO MENTION: Scientific arguments about evolution are really an argument about some process that supposedly began to take place nearly a billion years after earth came into existence. Think about that: a BILLION years before ANY life appeared. And GAP theory will never be widely accepted, you might as well give it up. The theologians and ancient Hebrew scholars, almost to a one, dismiss it! You've got to read it into the Biblical text, and you can't get around the limitations demanded by ancient Hebrew grammar structure. And the scientists overwhelmingly reject such a possibility. VERY few Christians accept this theory. So, Abel, quit torturing yourself, it just ain't gonna be accepted. And even IF it were true, it's like (amongst Christians) the issues surrounding the age of the earth and universe - good and smart people continuously argue over both the science and the Scriptural interpretations involved. If you think that acceptance of GAP Theory is going to be important to people taking Scripture seriously, only scholars of a century ago might have entertained such a fantasy. Not to mention that what you assert, for acceptance - even amongst Christians - is that 1) the Scriptural evidence for it would need to be extremely convincing, and those Christian scholars and theologians we all pay close attention to would have to be on board and in significant numbers; 2) Christians ALSO pay attention to what scientific opinion is - even if they don't necessarily buy into every nuance of what most scientists believe - meaning, Christians would expect significant scientific evidences that point toward a former world, to be touted by at least a goodly percentage of scientists in appropriate disciplines. After how many centuries of scientific analysis and theological scholarship will we have to await a 180-degree about face on Gap Theory? Give it up!

You might want to do what I finally did, in the YEC vs. OEC wars - and that is, I have concluded it's wasted time, energy and breath on a subject that is irrelevant. Because, before God began speaking to Adam, there's really not anything critical for us to understand. The portions of Scripture revealing what came before Adam and HOW are the briefest of sketches. Why, because those details are almost like reading a book's introductory chapter: "It was a beautiful day, not a cloud in the sky, and ever so quiet, peaceful. A cool, crisp breeze fluttered the leaves on the trees. And then a tall man appeared and he began to speak in a loud voice." But, the parallel, NOTHING of importance, in my fictional novel's beginning, happens until a character appears and begins to speak, and later various drama unfolds. The importance of the novel has nothing to do with the weather and tranquility preceding the arrival of the protagonist of my story. It's irrelevant. Kinda like GAP Theory and YEC vs. OEC. People debate, ad nausem, the particulars of the irrelevant while often ignoring what truly matters! And until God creates Adam and they begin interacting, well, it's mostly irrelevant! And our obsessions over whatever irrelevant thing, no matter what it is, can be harmful and an enormous waste of our time.

You might be right but IMO you are just being negative.If the church began teaching the gap theory people would see how it defeats evolution and the perception would change.It seems you're just going with more popular creation interpretations and it is tempting to do.But popularity does not make it biblically true.The fact is that all we know about are YEC,OEC and intelligent design and these have become popular and so people go with one of them but nobody has seen what the Gap theory would do to the theory of evolution and so people continue to doubt it,meanwhile evolution is stronger than ever and has greatly influenced not just society but the church also when it may not even be true.

So all of these Christians accepting evolution and the evolution of the universe and fitting it into the bible could be totally wrong.I only care about the truth and more popular creation interpretations might be popular and maybe the truth of the Gap theory will continue to be suppressed it really does not matter to me.

Evolution is a giant of a scientific theory and some of you kind of remind me of what the people around David said to him when he was thinking about taking on Goliath.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I'll be upfront.If you choose to accept the Gap Theory then you must reject how science observes the evidence in the earth,because the evidence is proof that a former world existed that perished and has nothing to do with life evolving.But if you choose to go with science all built around and based on evolution then you are accepting science all based on evolution.You do have to choose.Science or the Gap theory interpretation.We have a lost world nobody knows about because of evolution and it was a Lord of the rings type world too if we look at and examine the fossils.

ACB,

Science doesn't observe anything. Scientists use the scientific method to interpret the evidence in nature. There are plenty of scientists that see the evidence as not supporting the theory of evolution. Since I'm familiar with Reasons.org, I'll use them as an example. Reasons has scientists on their staff that don't believe the evidence shows molecules to man.

But let me get this straight...in order to accept the Gap Theory, we must dismiss science?

So, let's see if I'm accurate...if I choose to believe the Gap theory, I must dismiss science, AND completely mangle the Hebrew text in the OT?
Is that what it takes to be a Gap Theorist?

Rick,maybe you misunderstand me but how can you deny scientists observe the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective? Everything is looked at from the perspective of evolution and all branches of science accept,sure there are scientists who don't but they are in the minority and are considered scientific heretics.

It is all about how we interpret the evidence in the earth and science interprets it from an evolution view point.If there was a former world that existed that perished? How come it doesn't seem important to you? I mean shouldn't we want to know if there was and what kind of evidence we have to back it up? I think we should make sure the bible does not teach it first,because it is easy to dismiss it for more popular theories.Stellar evolution is all based on evolution which is what I meant.

But how can we as Christians reject biological evolution but accept the evolution of the universe and everything in it? These are tough questions that I ask myself when comparing ideas out there.

Abel: But popularity does not make it biblically true.The fact is that all we know about are YEC,OEC and intelligent design and these have become popular and so people go with one of them but nobody has seen what the Gap theory would do to the theory of evolution and so people continue to doubt it,meanwhile evolution is stronger than ever and has greatly influenced not just society but the church also when it may not even be true.


Abel: So all of these Christians accepting evolution and the evolution of the universe and fitting it into the bible could be totally wrong.I only care about the truth and more popular creation interpretations might be popular and maybe the truth of the Gap theory will continue to be suppressed it really does not matter to me.

But we're not arguing from popularity, but from the scholarship and knowledge of an overwhelming percentage of conservative, inerrancy believing Bible scholars, most of them REJECTING evolution, and that have dedicated their very lives to studying the important nuances of the evidences and the pertinent texts and associated languages. Do you really think such people care about the POPULARITY of their position? Because if they were on a hunt for what seems popular, don't you think such people would be thrilled to find that all of these evidences could explain away questions about the age of the earth, etc. You need to listen to what I saw Jac implore you on another thread. You don't know enough and aren't sufficiently trained to understand WHY what you are promoting has been overwhelmingly rejected by evangelical scholars and theologians. And that SHOULD concern you!

Abel: But how can we as Christians reject biological evolution but accept the evolution of the universe and everything in it? These are tough questions that I ask myself when comparing ideas out there.

HUH? Abel, why are YOU seemingly equating ancient perceived ages for the earth and universe with some type of evolution. Progressive Creationism most certainly believe that 1) macroevolution did not occur and 2) that God created all species and things, DIRECTLY and AFTER their own kinds. I'm not getting how you equate the rejection of Gap Theory with embracing evolution? There ARE important nuances that one must parse in these things. It seems that you are saying, if there was no evolution, ONLY Gap Theory can explain the evidences - which we all know is not the case.

If you've not read this book, I highly suggest it! http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory- ... 0801014425

Philip wrote:

Abel: But popularity does not make it biblically true.The fact is that all we know about are YEC,OEC and intelligent design and these have become popular and so people go with one of them but nobody has seen what the Gap theory would do to the theory of evolution and so people continue to doubt it,meanwhile evolution is stronger than ever and has greatly influenced not just society but the church also when it may not even be true.


Abel: So all of these Christians accepting evolution and the evolution of the universe and fitting it into the bible could be totally wrong.I only care about the truth and more popular creation interpretations might be popular and maybe the truth of the Gap theory will continue to be suppressed it really does not matter to me.

But we're not arguing from popularity, but from the scholarship and knowledge of an overwhelming percentage of conservative, inerrancy believing Bible scholars, most of them REJECTING evolution, and that have dedicated their very lives to studying the important nuances of the evidences and the pertinent texts and associated languages. Do you really think such people care about the POPULARITY of their position? Because if they were on a hunt for what seems popular, don't you think such people would be thrilled to find that all of these evidences could explain away questions about the age of the earth, etc. You need to listen to what I saw Jac implore you on another thread. You don't know enough and aren't sufficiently trained to understand WHY what you are promoting has been overwhelmingly rejected by evangelical scholars and theologians. And that SHOULD concern you!

Abel: But how can we as Christians reject biological evolution but accept the evolution of the universe and everything in it? These are tough questions that I ask myself when comparing ideas out there.

HUH? Abel, why are YOU seemingly equating ancient perceived ages for the earth and universe with some type of evolution. Progressive Creationism most certainly believe that 1) macroevolution did not occur and 2) that God created all species and things, DIRECTLY and AFTER their own kinds. I'm not getting how you equate the rejection of Gap Theory with embracing evolution? There ARE important nuances that one must parse in these things. It seems that you are saying, if there was no evolution, ONLY Gap Theory can explain the evidences - which we all know is not the case.

If you've not read this book, I highly suggest it! http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory- ... 0801014425

No,I do understand how the Gap theory has been rejected,I know bible scholars of today reject it,but I also know bible scholars of the past did not reject it.I know very well why it has been rejected and do understand,still I believe it should not be rejected but what can I do?I still think the church has been using the wrong creation interpretations against evolution and as we know it has had no effect.I believe the perception would change if people could see how the Gap theory defeats evolution,but it has not been seen and so not many know.Most scientists accept evolution but that does not mean it is true,man can be wrong and has been wrong many times in the past when it came to interpretations of God's word.Also despite the rejections from even bible scholars I have never seen or read where it was biblically refuted,yet still denied and this really sticks out to me.How can bible scholars reject the Gap theory when they cannot and have not biblically refuted it? When it comes to God's word we should be able to explain and show why something is wrong and it has not been done,despite the rejections from everything that I have read and looked into.

And no I am not saying at all that those reject the Gap theory for other creation theories automatically reject evolution.I know there are differences as I have looked into all of them that I know about,but it is very hard to accept evolution of any kind if you accept the gap theory because we believe and can back it up historically that Charles Darwin whether knowingly or not hijacked the evidence that was discovered by Christians and made evolution fit into that evidence discovered by Christians who started modern science and so we have a lost world nobody knows about because of evolution.

I was simply trying to make a point about something that has stuck out to me when I have looked into other creation interpretations and that is some reject biological evolution while accepting stellar evolution.

You do know that there have been many times in the past when the majority of Christians believed a certain interpretation was true and yet over time was proven wrong by God's word.God's word has proven both believers and nonbelievers wrong in the past with their majority interpretation and it still happens now.

I can give examples like when the black plague hit Christians because of the majority believed it was from demons and that God was punishing man and even nonbelievers could do nothing and science and medicine could do nothing and people were dying,when certain Christians started reading the old testament laws on sanitation and cleanliness and quarantine,the answer was in God's word the whole time and yet had been overlooked by a majority interpretation and as they did what the OT laws said to do the black plague was stopped by following the old testament laws on cleanliness,sanitation and qurantine- removing the sick from camp and seperating them from the non-sick,then germs were discovered and it only confirmed God's word true.Recently we had an Ebola scare and yet what would science say to do today if it hit? Quarantine,which is what the bible said to do thousands of years ago.

Abel, Bible scholarship AND scientific data (ANOTHER testimony to what was created and how, correctly interpreted) and analysis (God's given us the the technical ability and knowledge to learn quite a lot about our world and universe) ALL grow and have exponentially increased over time. What is known now about all of these things is far greater than when, a century past, some theologians THOUGHT perhaps there was something to GT. But it's the very KNOWLEDGE growth that has produced a total rejection of it. That Christian scholars OVERWHELMINGLY reject GT, today, should make you wonder. EVERYTHING is not a grand conspiracy theory or a mere capitulation to the tsunami of evolutionary belief. That so many Christian scholars and theologians live, breath, think and pray about Scripture every day of their professional lives means they are looking at it in detail that you and I can't imagine. If even a small but significant percentage of evangelical scholars were open to GT, I'd not be so quick to dismiss it. But, really, and just ask Jac, such scholars are so rare as to be virtually extinct (Jac would probably say they ARE extinct).

Abel: I still think the church has been using the wrong creation interpretations against evolution and as we know it has had no effect.I believe the perception would change if people could see how the Gap theory defeats evolution,but it has not been seen and so not many know.

Abel, I believe the above is at the heart of why you are so attracted to GT. It's because you so detest the destructive influences of belief in pure naturalism/evolution and you see GT as a Scripture-based rebuttal. But that is an emotion-driven reason to latch onto something. But your real problem is 1) with Scripture's precise wording and 2) with a lack of any DEFINITIVE supportive Scriptural evidences - you've got to read GT into the text. And you mistrust those with much of the very same expertise of many who have worked to produce today's modern translations (ESV, NASB, NIV) - really, do you also mistrust the best of today's translations as well? There's reasonable arguments about some nuances in translations, but as for GT - it's not even a debate on today's Christian scholars' radar.

Phillip, all good points, more's the pity they are going to be ignored.

Philip wrote:Abel, Bible scholarship AND scientific data (ANOTHER testimony to what was created and how, correctly interpreted) and analysis (God's given us the the technical ability and knowledge to learn quite a lot about our world and universe) ALL grow and have exponentially increased over time. What is known now about all of these things is far greater than when, a century past, some theologians THOUGHT perhaps there was something to GT. But it's the very KNOWLEDGE growth that has produced a total rejection of it. That Christian scholars OVERWHELMINGLY reject GT, today, should make you wonder. EVERYTHING is not a grand conspiracy theory or a mere capitulation to the tsunami of evolutionary belief. That so many Christian scholars and theologians live, breath, think and pray about Scripture every day of their professional lives means they are looking at it in detail that you and I can't imagine. If even a small but significant percentage of evangelical scholars were open to GT, I'd not be so quick to dismiss it. But, really, and just ask Jac, such scholars are so rare as to be virtually extinct (Jac would probably say they ARE extinct).

Abel: I still think the church has been using the wrong creation interpretations against evolution and as we know it has had no effect.I believe the perception would change if people could see how the Gap theory defeats evolution,but it has not been seen and so not many know.

Abel, I believe the above is at the heart of why you are so attracted to GT. It's because you so detest the destructive influences of belief in pure naturalism/evolution and you see GT as a Scripture-based rebuttal. But that is an emotion-driven reason to latch onto something. But your real problem is 1) with Scripture's precise wording and 2) with a lack of any DEFINITIVE supportive Scriptural evidences - you've got to read GT into the text. And you mistrust those with much of the very same expertise of many who have worked to produce today's modern translations (ESV, NASB, NIV) - really, do you also mistrust the best of today's translations as well? There's reasonable arguments about some nuances in translations, but as for GT - it's not even a debate on today's Christian scholars' radar.

It sounds like to me you should be YEC then,also based on what you posted above you pretty much said or implied that even if the gap theory is true,you would still reject it because of scholars rejection of it.And if this is so,then why should we even study the bible for ourselves? We can just go by what scholars think.I cannot think like this.

You think I have accepted the GT because I so detest naturalism\evolution? No,not at All,Ibelieve the GT is biblically sound and despite your assertions no gap theorist is making things fit into the text,it is actually the opposite,but overlooked.If you cannot give sound biblical reasons why you reject the GT and instead accept more popular creation interpretations that are based on science that has been greatly influenced by evolution then why would you reject it?

I mean it has never been demonstrated life evolves despite those who have accepted it both atheists and Christians,and yet you are choosing to put your faith in science that requires faith to believe it,then apply it to the bible when it might be wrong.

Making Noah's flood fit into places in the bible where it does not fit is doing what you accuse GT of doing making things fit into the text,when it doesn't and although bible scholars of today reject the GT and you choose to believe them that are pushing mostly YEC,I choose to believe bible scholars of the past instead,and the GT is still taught today by bible teachers and preachers even so that it is not extinct it is just not well known about and easily overlooked.

And I do believe it is a shame that we have " A Lost World" nobody knows about and has been totally overlooked because of evolution in science.When the evidence in the earth proves it,if you don't look at it from an evolution perspective,as there are no transitional fossils in the strata like Darwin said we should find and never did.But this stuff is ignored and evolution is still accepted. Evolution might be wrong.

Also I go by evidence for everything I accept or reject and this is how I know the evidence for the GT is more persuasive than the evidence for evolution,even if evolution has a lot more evidence it does not prove it and requires faith to believe.
Meanwhile even if you want to deny the bible teaches a former world existed that perished,it would still defeat evolution to make a case for it and then back it up with evidence.