Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Think of the gap theory as the church's ace in the hole when it comes to the theory of evolution and yet most don't even realize it.

Then count me as one who doesn't realize it.

Let me ask you this. Why do you think there aren't any Christians who are going around debating the gap theory, against evolution?

That is a good question and as far as I can tell a lot of them think that until the church unites and accepts God's word?It would be like spinning wheels in the mud,a house divided cannot stand ,others think it would be more effective to debate YEC's,but I disagree,I think people need to see how effective the gap theory can be and then people will come around.

If the church was teaching the gap theory like they do YEC evolution would not be so popular and would not be so powerful like it is but YEC's teach against the gap theory and this is the problem and they refuse to change so we should go around them and show people what the gap theory can do to the theory of evolution,then people would come around regardless of Ken Ham,etc.

Maybe its because educated people know there is no 'gap theory". There is a guess, falling far short of even a hypothesis. And its a guess so thoroughly disproved in all details that it is a discredit and embarrassment to any religion that harbours such.

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense is not one destined for a great future.

Fortunately, that is not about to happen.

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense

Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

Philip wrote:

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense

Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up something stupid then claiming someone believes it.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense

Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up stupid then claiming someone believes it.

William Buckland
http://www.famousscientists.org/william-buckland/

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense

Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up stupid then claiming someone believes it.

Plenty believe it, and just because you don`t doesn`t make it stupid, or even wrong.
What`s wrong with evaluating things for yourself and coming to your own conclusions? Personally, I am not convinced by the Gap theory but that doesn`t mean I think I have the right to dismiss those that do.

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense

Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up stupid then claiming someone believes it.

Plenty believe it, and just because you don`t doesn`t make it stupid, or even wrong.
What`s wrong with evaluating things for yourself and coming to your own conclusions? Personally, I am not convinced by the Gap theory but that doesn`t mean I think I have the right to dismiss those that do.

Plenty believe WHAT? The "gap theory" or the ridiculous caricature of what (all) atheists must believe, according to P?
It was a caricature, and the "gap theory" is what I said it is. Neither is a "just because I". Neither does that "lots" believe something have the least evidentiary value, else belief in Atlantis and astrology need be taken as significant.

Further, I commented on the "gap" theory for being what it is, and P jumped in with irrelevant insulting falsehoods, which I rightly said was neither intelligent nor admirable.

Nothing is wrong with study and reflection. Why would you have it occur to you Id suggest otherwise? Where one goes wrong
is encapsulated in such words as "facile", self-deception, ( the easiest person to fool being oneself), seeking to prove a conclusion, subjectivism, etc.

The "gap theory" is not a theory,its not even a hypothesis.

Now, the reductio ad absurdum / misrepresentation of theoretical astrophysics ( from one whose grasp of science is such that they think there really was a world wide flood) was about, sort of, the actual theories of physics.

Where "gap" is shallow uninformed reading of science, childish nonsense that can be disproved in so many ways
that even ICR says its wrong, nobody here understands let alone can find fault in astrophysics.

Finally the notion that I or all atheists find it necessary to "believe something".

I noted a thread titled something like, "I picked a creation stance". HUH? Decide, like picking what colour blouse?
Ok....

Hard as it may be for some here to grasp, I dont
"believe in" anything regarding the origin of the universe.

I dont find it necessary or desirable to "pick a belief". I dont know how it all got here,
and I am not going to obsess over trying to unlock mysteries that are beyond anyone's grasp.

Finally on the "right to dismiss" the gap thing. I dont see how it relates to a rights issue,
but if someone presents a patently absurd and discredited idea in a, yes, debate forum,
what do you think is a suitable response?

How about if I presented some hare brain "theory" about Jesus, that required among other things that all
theologians had a "crossist perspective" and were therefore wrong, Jesus was actually lynched, in Missouri
USA?

No right or reason to find fault in my so called theory?

Audie wrote:
Hard as it may be for some here to grasp, I dont
"believe in" anything regarding the origin of the universe.

I dont find it necessary or desirable to "pick a belief". I dont know how it all got here,
and I am not going to obsess over trying to unlock mysteries that are beyond anyone's grasp.

Excellent point Audie! Excellent point.

Ken

Audie,

Could you show where Philip said that all atheists and agnostics believe that?

From what I read, he was talking specifically about the ones who do.

My point is this there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and you can read through this thread and see that nobody has been able to prove me wrong,just like I explained science either uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,yet despite this everything has been looked at from an evolution perspective.

I'm talking about the fossils,evidence of death and extinction in this earth,the age of the earth,etc has all been looked at from an evolution perspective but this evidence is really evidence for a former world that existed,a lost world that nobody knows about because of evolution.The evidence in the earth is proof that a former world existed with different life in it than this world has,and even if you reject the biblical interpretation that reveals this former world existed that perished?This theory is more believable based on the same evidence in evolution science.

Also do not forget if you teach that all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation then you're wrong according to 2nd Peter 3:3-4 and yet only the gap theory adheres to this biblical principle,all others accept all things have gone on continually since the beginning of creation and that is why I accept it.

You cannot teach all things have gone on continually from the beginning and be biblically right,this is called uniformitarianism and it is wrong,no matter how much you accept it,uniformitarianism is out biblically,and you cannot use Noah's flood as an excuse because you and I both know that this world we now live in has went on since Adam and Eve including Noah's flood,so you have no excuse.This biblical fact rules out evolution,YEC and OEC and intelligent design and it is because scientists believe life evolves and have looked at the evidence from this perspective and so they always keep some life alive during extinction events and keep it going continually since the beginning.

I cannot ignore what the bible clearly states and really the evidence in the earth confirms it has not gone on continually since the beginning but scientists believe life evolves and so keep it going continually for billions of years,despite what the evidence reveals, there is more life extinct than life in this world.

abelcainsbrother wrote:My point is this there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and you can read through this thread and see that nobody has been able to prove me wrong, just like I explained science either uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,yet despite this everything has been looked at from an evolution perspective.

Do you have any proof of a scientist actually doing this?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:My point is this there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and you can read through this thread and see that nobody has been able to prove me wrong, just like I explained science either uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,yet despite this everything has been looked at from an evolution perspective.

Do you have any proof of a scientist actually doing this?

Ken

Yes,viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,fruit flies,etc in each of these examples it is either reproduction or adaptation,not life evolving,you must assume life evolves based on reproduction or adaptation because the evidence only shows reproduction or adaptation.Plants adapting to weed killer,is adaptation,it does not prove or demonstrate life evolves but they tell you it is,and explain it is evolving.When a plant adapts to weed killer and remains the same kind of plant,how can you claim it evolved?Yet this is what they do.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:My point is this there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and you can read through this thread and see that nobody has been able to prove me wrong, just like I explained science either uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,yet despite this everything has been looked at from an evolution perspective.

Do you have any proof of a scientist actually doing this?

Ken

Yes,viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,fruit flies,etc in each of these examples it is either reproduction or adaptation,not life evolving,you must assume life evolves based on reproduction or adaptation because the evidence only shows reproduction or adaptation.Plants adapting to weed killer,is adaptation,it does not prove or demonstrate life evolves but they tell you it is,and explain it is evolving.When a plant adapts to weed killer and remains the same kind of plant,how can you claim it evolved?Yet this is what they do.

When a scientist claims evolution, they are saying the genetic structure and/or physical anatomy of the plant, animal, insect, or whatever it is they are talking about has changed due to the environment. When they claim adaption, they are saying it has changed due to the environment, but it's genetic structure and physical anatomy has remained intact.
An example of adaption would be like a dog shedding his winter coat during summertime; his genetic structure and physical anatomy remains intact during this process.
What you are claiming is that scientists observe (example) a dog shedding his winter coat during summertime and claiming his genetic structure or physical anatomy has changed. My question to you is; how do you know they were lying unless you were a part of all those experiments that took place?

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:My point is this there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and you can read through this thread and see that nobody has been able to prove me wrong, just like I explained science either uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,yet despite this everything has been looked at from an evolution perspective.

Do you have any proof of a scientist actually doing this?

Ken

Yes,viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,fruit flies,etc in each of these examples it is either reproduction or adaptation,not life evolving,you must assume life evolves based on reproduction or adaptation because the evidence only shows reproduction or adaptation.Plants adapting to weed killer,is adaptation,it does not prove or demonstrate life evolves but they tell you it is,and explain it is evolving.When a plant adapts to weed killer and remains the same kind of plant,how can you claim it evolved?Yet this is what they do.

"Kind" is a creo weasel word that cannot be defined. Go ahead and try; make up something.

A pesticide resistant weed has not become a new species.

If you are claiming that evolution has not taken place unless a new species you are again demonstrating
you do not know anything about evolution. Your repeated claims of "no evidence" us of course, simply false.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:My point is this there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and you can read through this thread and see that nobody has been able to prove me wrong, just like I explained science either uses reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,yet despite this everything has been looked at from an evolution perspective.

Do you have any proof of a scientist actually doing this?

Ken

Yes,viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,fruit flies,etc in each of these examples it is either reproduction or adaptation,not life evolving,you must assume life evolves based on reproduction or adaptation because the evidence only shows reproduction or adaptation.Plants adapting to weed killer,is adaptation,it does not prove or demonstrate life evolves but they tell you it is,and explain it is evolving.When a plant adapts to weed killer and remains the same kind of plant,how can you claim it evolved?Yet this is what they do.

"Kind" is a creo weasel word that cannot be defined. Go ahead and try; make up something.

A pesticide resistant weed has not become a new species.

If you are claiming that evolution has not taken place unless a new species you are again demonstrating
you do not know anything about evolution. Your repeated claims of "no evidence" us of course, simply false.

Audie,
"Kind" is not a creo weasel word. It goes all the way back to the original King James Bible of 1611.

For one example, look at Genesis 1:24 here:
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Gen ... -1611-KJV/