Evidence for God from Science

You've all heard of the "God of The Gaps" argument?

Well, the Gap Theory is the "Gap of the Gaps" argument.

And all you evilushinists can go pound sand. Monkeys are still around, so that disproves evilushin. The monkeys and the Gap Theory, disprove evilushin.

RickD wrote:You've all heard of the "God of The Gaps" argument?

Well, the Gap Theory is the "Gap of the Gaps" argument.

And all you evilushinists can go pound sand. Monkeys are still around, so that disproves evilushin. The monkeys and the Gap Theory, disprove evilushin.

Yes. A terrible blow for God and Gap strikes home, deadly and true.

https://www.google.com/search?q=thurber ... u-im7VM%3A

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Those here who think they are right because "God" guides them, making them effectively infallible
are, yes, deranged.

You've made this comment a number of times now but I'm not sure based on what. Has anyone actually asserted as much (I certainly hope not) or is it just a personal observation you've concluded?

Why no; I'd not expect anyone to state it directly

However, we do see stated by mant people including the proximal subject of that observation,
that they trust / believe / are speaking what hey call "God's word".

"I trust God's Word, not the words of man." (therefore whatever you say contrary to
God's Word is wrong,

Up to here I don't have an issue.

Audie wrote:I am right, impossible for me to be wrong.)

You know?

"We who are right with god are gifted with right readin', it is all nonsense to a atheist."

But here I do. First, assuming there is a God and He is the God of the Bible, then it stands to reason that his revealed Word would be gospel (pun very much intended, sorry ). But again, you assume because we believe in God then we must also believe that our interpretation of his revelation is without error. What's worse is that you make a sweeping generalization as if all believers believe the same thing and act the same way when you know well that is not the case. That's mostly where my beef is with your statement.

Audie wrote:I point out that it is their choice to believe in God, or in Allah etc, their choice to interpret what they think to be the word of a god as they do.

To a certain extend but is it really a matter of choice? I don't think so. I think it is a matter of being persuaded by the evidence while granting each of us may be persuaded differently.

Audie wrote:Pointed out that to say for example that they know there was a worldwide flood,
because "God" says so is among other things the very definition of intellectual
dishonesty; that it is profoundly arrogant to proclaim knowledge of the natural world
beyond the learning of any resesrcher on earth.

As you well know there are ranges of beliefs. I, for one, am an evolutionist and don't believe in a world-wide flood, while at the same time believe in the inerrancy of scripture while granting the possibility of interpretation disagreements. So where does that leave me and the many others like me vis-a-vis your stereo-typical charge?

Audie wrote:Pointed out that all of this is in fact a declaratoon of infallibility.

How could it be said it is not?

I think I just did. All I'm saying is be careful with the sweeping generalizations. Your point may have merit on a narrow scale but loses credibility when the net is cast much wider.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Those here who think they are right because "God" guides them, making them effectively infallible
are, yes, deranged.

You've made this comment a number of times now but I'm not sure based on what. Has anyone actually asserted as much (I certainly hope not) or is it just a personal observation you've concluded?

Why no; I'd not expect anyone to state it directly

However, we do see stated by mant people including the proximal subject of that observation,
that they trust / believe / are speaking what hey call "God's word".

"I trust God's Word, not the words of man." (therefore whatever you say contrary to
God's Word is wrong,

Up to here I don't have an issue.

Audie wrote:I am right, impossible for me to be wrong.)

You know?

"We who are right with god are gifted with right readin', it is all nonsense to a atheist."

But here I do. First, assuming there is a God and He is the God of the Bible, then it stands to reason that his revealed Word would be gospel (pun very much intended, sorry ). But again, you assume because we believe in God then we must also believe that our interpretation of his revelation is without error. What's worse is that you make a sweeping generalization as if all believers believe the same thing and act the same way when you know well that is not the case. That's mostly where my beef is with your statement.

Audie wrote:I point out that it is their choice to believe in God, or in Allah etc, their choice to interpret what they think to be the word of a god as they do.

To a certain extend but is it really a matter of choice? I don't think so. I think it is a matter of being persuaded by the evidence while granting each of us may be persuaded differently.

Audie wrote:Pointed out that to say for example that they know there was a worldwide flood,
because "God" says so is among other things the very definition of intellectual
dishonesty; that it is profoundly arrogant to proclaim knowledge of the natural world
beyond the learning of any resesrcher on earth.

As you well know there are ranges of beliefs. I, for one, am an evolutionist and don't believe in a world-wide flood, while at the same time believe in the inerrancy of scripture while granting the possibility of interpretation disagreements. So where does that leave me and the many others like me vis-a-vis your stereo-typical charge?

Audie wrote:Pointed out that all of this is in fact a declaratoon of infallibility.

How could it be said it is not?

I think I just did. All I'm saying is be careful with the sweeping generalizations. Your point may have merit on a narrow scale but loses credibility when the net is cast much wider.

Now, I was careful to say "those who" ( believe their reading is guided by god).
A circumscribed group

So you misread me thinking I assume all, or sweepingly generalize. Not at all.

Narrow focus is on those who do make an implicit claim to inerrant access to arcane knowledge

Obviously not you, say, or Krink, among others.

Choosing...regardless of how you approach your beliefs or I mine, we both see others say that atheists choose to disbelieve, and that they choose to believe.

I think the infallibles among us are making choices. Do you disagree?

I said their behaviour is the very definition of inteccectual dishonesty.
Do you disagree?

Audie wrote: Now, I was careful to say "those who" ( believe their reading is guided by god).
A circumscribed group

So you misread me thinking I assume all, or sweepingly generalize. Not at all.

Understood, thank you for clarifying.

Audie wrote:Narrow focus is on those who do make an implicit claim to inerrant access to arcane knowledge

I still think that's an unwarranted conclusion on you part as no one I know of is claiming (or even implying) such.

Audie wrote:Choosing...regardless of how you approach your beliefs or I mine, we both see others say that atheists choose to disbelieve, and that they choose to believe.

I don't want to get into the nature of belief and so on but suffice to say belief is not a choice, it is a conclusion to a given set of premises. The conclusion may be in error for many reasons, one or more of the premises are incorrect, the conclusion does not follow logically or is presupposed into the argument, etc. But the fact remains any belief system is based on knowledge and not a choice per se.

Audie wrote:I think the infallibles among us are making choices. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. I think they are making decisions (i.e. arriving at conclusions) they believe best fit the set of premises under consideration. It is not the case that it is a choice borne out of willful disregard.

Audie wrote:I said their behaviour is the very definition of inteccectual dishonesty.
Do you disagree?

I again disagree as I don't believe the intention is to be willfully intellectually dishonest but rather to have complete conviction with one's beliefs even if they turn out to be faulty.

Let me ask you this, do you choose to be an atheist?

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: Now, I was careful to say "those who" ( believe their reading is guided by god).
A circumscribed group

So you misread me thinking I assume all, or sweepingly generalize. Not at all.

Understood, thank you for clarifying.

Audie wrote:Narrow focus is on those who do make an implicit claim to inerrant access to arcane knowledge

I still think that's an unwarranted conclusion on you part as no one I know of is claiming (or even implying) such.

Audie wrote:Choosing...regardless of how you approach your beliefs or I mine, we both see others say that atheists choose to disbelieve, and that they choose to believe.

I don't want to get into the nature of belief and so on but suffice to say belief is not a choice, it is a conclusion to a given set of premises. The conclusion may be in error for many reasons, one or more of the premises are incorrect, the conclusion does not follow logically or is presupposed into the argument, etc. But the fact remains any belief system is based on knowledge and not a choice per se.

Audie wrote:I think the infallibles among us are making choices. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. I think they are making decisions (i.e. arriving at conclusions) they believe best fit the set of premises under consideration. It is not the case that it is a choice borne out of willful disregard.

Audie wrote:I said their behaviour is the very definition of inteccectual dishonesty.
Do you disagree?

I again disagree as I don't believe the intention is to be willfully intellectually dishonest but rather to have complete conviction with one's beliefs even if they turn out to be faulty.

Let me ask you this, do you choose to be an atheist?

Try watching when people say what they KNOW is God's word, and how no evidence that
their reading is wrong is anything but "man's wisdom" versus the word of god.

Try looking at it from the perspective of that maybe they really are saying it is impossible for them to be wrong.


I dont think those who here say that ToE and deep time are false and against God's word are about to
say " oops, read it wrong"..do you? Or even admit it is possible they could be wrong.

I dont think such people consciously confront the intellectual dishonesty issue and choose to go to
the dark side. Negligent maybe, but not deliberate as such.

I do disagree that it is not willful disregard, a choice. A choice not to look, or think.
A choice not to entertain for a second any doubts. A choice to only look for confirmation.

Complete conviction. Yes, that is what I am talking about. The greater the conviction, the less hope for any objectivity. Complete conviction? Complete loss of objectivity,
out the window goes intellectual honesty.

Again quoting the paleontologist Dr K Wise..

"If all the evidence in the universe turned against it, I'd still be yec"

Is that not the attitude one finds so much of here? I dont see much latitude there for
"maybe I am wrong" nor a trace of intellectual honesty.

Id be ever so glad to be shown I am wrong in my assessment of the
infallibles.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: Now, I was careful to say "those who" ( believe their reading is guided by god).
A circumscribed group

So you misread me thinking I assume all, or sweepingly generalize. Not at all.

Understood, thank you for clarifying.

Audie wrote:Narrow focus is on those who do make an implicit claim to inerrant access to arcane knowledge

I still think that's an unwarranted conclusion on you part as no one I know of is claiming (or even implying) such.

Audie wrote:Choosing...regardless of how you approach your beliefs or I mine, we both see others say that atheists choose to disbelieve, and that they choose to believe.

I don't want to get into the nature of belief and so on but suffice to say belief is not a choice, it is a conclusion to a given set of premises. The conclusion may be in error for many reasons, one or more of the premises are incorrect, the conclusion does not follow logically or is presupposed into the argument, etc. But the fact remains any belief system is based on knowledge and not a choice per se.

Audie wrote:I think the infallibles among us are making choices. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. I think they are making decisions (i.e. arriving at conclusions) they believe best fit the set of premises under consideration. It is not the case that it is a choice borne out of willful disregard.

Audie wrote:I said their behaviour is the very definition of inteccectual dishonesty.
Do you disagree?

I again disagree as I don't believe the intention is to be willfully intellectually dishonest but rather to have complete conviction with one's beliefs even if they turn out to be faulty.

Let me ask you this, do you choose to be an atheist?

Try watching when people say what they KNOW is God's word, and how no evidence that
their reading is wrong is anything but "man's wisdom" versus the word of god.

Try looking at it from the perspective of that maybe they really are saying it is impossible for them to be wrong.


I dont think those who here say that ToE and deep time are false and against God's word are about to
say " oops, read it wrong"..do you? Or even admit it is possible they could be wrong.

I dont think such people consciously confront the intellectual dishonesty issue and choose to go to
the dark side. Negligent maybe, but not deliberate as such.

I do disagree that it is not willful disregard, a choice. A choice not to look, or think.
A choice not to entertain for a second any doubts. A choice to only look for confirmation.

Complete conviction. Yes, that is what I am talking about. The greater the conviction, the less hope for any objectivity. Complete conviction? Complete loss of objectivity,
out the window goes intellectual honesty.

Again quoting the paleontologist Dr K Wise..

"If all the evidence in the universe turned against it, I'd still be yec"

Is that not the attitude one finds so much of here? I dont see much latitude there for
"maybe I am wrong" nor a trace of intellectual honesty.

Id be ever so glad to be shown I am wrong in my assessment of the
infallibles.

I still don't agree but if you believe that to be the case then why do you bother with such Audie? If I were to argue for or against a position, any position at all, I would want to be presented with the strongest case possible so I don't waste my time attacking a weaker case. Only by attacking the strongest case do we discover our own needs modification/correction or it stands up to scrutiny. May I politely suggest you do the same.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: Now, I was careful to say "those who" ( believe their reading is guided by god).
A circumscribed group

So you misread me thinking I assume all, or sweepingly generalize. Not at all.

Understood, thank you for clarifying.

Audie wrote:Narrow focus is on those who do make an implicit claim to inerrant access to arcane knowledge

I still think that's an unwarranted conclusion on you part as no one I know of is claiming (or even implying) such.

Audie wrote:Choosing...regardless of how you approach your beliefs or I mine, we both see others say that atheists choose to disbelieve, and that they choose to believe.

I don't want to get into the nature of belief and so on but suffice to say belief is not a choice, it is a conclusion to a given set of premises. The conclusion may be in error for many reasons, one or more of the premises are incorrect, the conclusion does not follow logically or is presupposed into the argument, etc. But the fact remains any belief system is based on knowledge and not a choice per se.

Audie wrote:I think the infallibles among us are making choices. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. I think they are making decisions (i.e. arriving at conclusions) they believe best fit the set of premises under consideration. It is not the case that it is a choice borne out of willful disregard.

Audie wrote:I said their behaviour is the very definition of inteccectual dishonesty.
Do you disagree?

I again disagree as I don't believe the intention is to be willfully intellectually dishonest but rather to have complete conviction with one's beliefs even if they turn out to be faulty.

Let me ask you this, do you choose to be an atheist?

Try watching when people say what they KNOW is God's word, and how no evidence that
their reading is wrong is anything but "man's wisdom" versus the word of god.

Try looking at it from the perspective of that maybe they really are saying it is impossible for them to be wrong.


I dont think those who here say that ToE and deep time are false and against God's word are about to
say " oops, read it wrong"..do you? Or even admit it is possible they could be wrong.

I dont think such people consciously confront the intellectual dishonesty issue and choose to go to
the dark side. Negligent maybe, but not deliberate as such.

I do disagree that it is not willful disregard, a choice. A choice not to look, or think.
A choice not to entertain for a second any doubts. A choice to only look for confirmation.

Complete conviction. Yes, that is what I am talking about. The greater the conviction, the less hope for any objectivity. Complete conviction? Complete loss of objectivity,
out the window goes intellectual honesty.

Again quoting the paleontologist Dr K Wise..

"If all the evidence in the universe turned against it, I'd still be yec"

Is that not the attitude one finds so much of here? I dont see much latitude there for
"maybe I am wrong" nor a trace of intellectual honesty.

Id be ever so glad to be shown I am wrong in my assessment of the
infallibles.

I still don't agree but if you believe that to be the case then why do you bother with such Audie? If I were to argue for or against a position, any position at all, I would want to be presented with the strongest case possible so I don't waste my time attacking a weaker case. Only by attacking the strongest case do we discover our own needs modification/correction or it stands up to scrutiny. May I politely suggest you do the same.

I made an observation, illustrated with examples.

If you dont want to try to help me discover where I am wrong, as reauested, no prob.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:I still don't agree but if you believe that to be the case then why do you bother with such Audie? If I were to argue for or against a position, any position at all, I would want to be presented with the strongest case possible so I don't waste my time attacking a weaker case. Only by attacking the strongest case do we discover our own needs modification/correction or it stands up to scrutiny. May I politely suggest you do the same.

I made an observation, illustrated with examples.

If you dont want to try to help me discover where I am wrong, as reauested, no prob.

I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

But regardless, this:

Byblos wrote:I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

is, I think, excellent advice.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:I still don't agree but if you believe that to be the case then why do you bother with such Audie? If I were to argue for or against a position, any position at all, I would want to be presented with the strongest case possible so I don't waste my time attacking a weaker case. Only by attacking the strongest case do we discover our own needs modification/correction or it stands up to scrutiny. May I politely suggest you do the same.

I made an observation, illustrated with examples.

If you dont want to try to help me discover where I am wrong, as reauested, no prob.

I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

Im home instead of at work, I think I ate / drank the wrong thing in Haiti.

Possibly not thinking well. Mind goes blank for a reply. Maybe later.
Drop it for now.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:I still don't agree but if you believe that to be the case then why do you bother with such Audie? If I were to argue for or against a position, any position at all, I would want to be presented with the strongest case possible so I don't waste my time attacking a weaker case. Only by attacking the strongest case do we discover our own needs modification/correction or it stands up to scrutiny. May I politely suggest you do the same.

I made an observation, illustrated with examples.

If you dont want to try to help me discover where I am wrong, as reauested, no prob.

I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

Im home instead of at work, I think I ate / drank the wrong thing in Haiti.

Possibly not thinking well. Mind goes blank for a reply. Maybe later.
Drop it for now.

No problem. Hope you feel better.

Jac3510 wrote:I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

But regardless, this:

Byblos wrote:I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

is, I think, excellent advice.

Jac is right I will never get to a point where I refuse to admit I could be wrong,especially when it comes to the bible and God's word but I just don't believe I'm wrong about the gap theory. To me it is a creation interpretation that is the most right out of others I'm aware of. I know a lot of Christians reject it,but despite their unbelief from what I have seeen and read they reject it,but have never truthfully refuted it and a lot of times the things they claim are reasons to reject it are wrong when I examine it to see who is right.

However if it was ever truthfully refuted or somehow I realized the evidence of God's creation did not line up I would reject it in a heart beat but creationists who reject it cannot reject it based on straw man arguments and expect to be believed by Gap creationists. It is just based on their biased opinion and not so much the word of God and is more seen as an opinion/belief preference.

Although I do believe as Christians it is important to make sure we are right a creation interpretation is not a salvation issue to me and I never ever judge somebody's salvation just because we disagree about creation. If they have been saved by Jesus and are a Christian they are a brother or sister in Christ to me.

As far as evolution it has nothing at all to do with my creation interpretation at all that I reject it. I cannot believe God guided evolution somehow when the evidence is so weak that life evolves and so much is assumed to happen and that is based on myths and imagination. But if the evidence was strong for evolution? I would accept it.

Because I realized how weak the evidence for evolution is and I have learned about Gap Creationism I do believe it would totally defeat and destroy evolution compared to everything else from creationists have been thrown at evolution. It is just a more believable theory once evolution is refuted and pretty much the same evidence confirms the Gap Theory true. I know ya'll doubt it,maybe even don't believe it,but you have never saw what would happen. For those creationists who reject evolution? Only Gap Creation could defeat it by being more believable based on the evidence. No other creation theory could or can.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:I still don't agree but if you believe that to be the case then why do you bother with such Audie? If I were to argue for or against a position, any position at all, I would want to be presented with the strongest case possible so I don't waste my time attacking a weaker case. Only by attacking the strongest case do we discover our own needs modification/correction or it stands up to scrutiny. May I politely suggest you do the same.

I made an observation, illustrated with examples.

If you dont want to try to help me discover where I am wrong, as reauested, no prob.

I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

I made an observation, gave examples. You cannot answer my "charges". Good enough.

I think it worthwhile to ferret out whether in fact some believe themselves to be infallible.
If you dont, that is fine.

Jac3510 wrote:I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

.

Well, yes, lip service; as in, in name only.

I asked the obdurate one mentioned above similar questions:

Is it possible that you are mistaken, and there is no God at all?

Is it possible that the bible is not in any way the word of any God?

People make claim to guidance from God in bible interpretation.
Do you take this as an implicit claim that God steered them right?