The Gap theory

[Audie]

]

And I told you what an intermediate would be, if one existed.

Sort of.

There's no hand waving going on. I say the fossil evidence supports progressive creation better than the theory of evolution.

While not a definition, it is a good example of hand wave.

Nope, not endless. His creation ended with man. And, stop throwing out the stupid global flood straw man crap. I told you I don't believe in a global flood, so there wouldn't be any evidence for one.

"Ended with man" is just an editorial opinion with no basis whatever.
In any case, what I meant by "endless" was that there are so very many
intermediate forms, it gives such a good simulation (if such it were) of evolution! Mechanism and all, and yet its all an illusion.

You misunderstood what I said about global flood. I am not strawmanning you, its as cheap to claim it as it would be for me to do it.

Those who think there was such a flood betimes claim we see no evidence coz he cleaned it up. Kind of the f lip of all this evidence for evolution, but it is deceptive.

]If progressive creation is wrong, it will be shown to be wrong

How could you do that? Looks ironclad unfalsifiable to me.

What would do it? IF every single blessed generation from the Devonian to now were available in the fossil record, you could say the same:, progressive-progressive. Nobody can even prove that god does not direct every raindrop to its designated LZ.

Here is something that I really dont get about the progressive stance.

Why would it even occur to anyone that their omnipotent god would have to tinker with his creation, as if its an old British sports car?

Are you a "micro but not macro" guy? Why?

[Audie]

Tricky, like erasing all evidence of the flood.
And, stop throwing out the stupid global flood straw man crap. I told you I don't believe in a global flood, so there wouldn't be any evidence for one.

BTW... the lack of physical evidence for an aleged 'global flood' is another problem with the Gap Theory.

YEC and the Gap Theory both assert a 'Global Flood' for which there is no geological evidence. They just place their global floods at different times in history.

In Christ

Well, people do get excited when I mention "flood" for a variety of good reasons. I didnt think RD was a floodie, he shows too much other evidence of sanity, mi guided as he may be in other ways.

Sorry to raise your blood pressure Ardy, it wasnt as you thought.

Of course, there are those who say there is everywhere evidence, others who say there is none, all the time saying there was a global flood.

And those somewhat more well grounded folks who realize either its a fluffed up version of a local flood, or that it is pure fantasy.

[DBowling]

Here is something that I really dont get about the progressive stance.

Why would it even occur to anyone that their omnipotent god would have to tinker with his creation

For me the answer is quite simple, if something shows overwhelming evidence of 'tinkering' then the natural implication is that there is a Tinkerer who is responsible.

For me, some of the evidences of tinkering are the classic ones... the origin of life, the complexity of coding in DNA, the Cambrian explosion, irreducibly complex biological organisms, etc.

Most scientists, even secular ones, will acknowledge that known naturalistic processes cannot adequately explain evidences of tinkering like those listed above.
Some people say it just looks like tinkering, because we haven't figured it out yet.
Some people say it looks like tinkering, because there is a Tinkerer.

As for why God would have to tinker with his creation... he didn't 'have to'.
I personally believe that he chose to tinker, and leave evidence of his tinkering for a very specific purpose.

I think the Apostle Paul says it well (Romans 1:20)...
" For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made "

In Christ

[Audie]

Here is something that I really dont get about the progressive stance.

Why would it even occur to anyone that their omnipotent god would have to tinker with his creation

For me the answer is quite simple, if something shows overwhelming evidence of 'tinkering' then the natural implication is that there is a Tinkerer who is responsible.

For me, some of the evidences of tinkering are the classic ones... the origin of life, the complexity of coding in DNA, the Cambrian explosion, irreducibly complex biological organisms, etc.

Most scientists, even secular ones, will acknowledge that known naturalistic processes cannot adequately explain evidences of tinkering like those listed above.
Some people say it just looks like tinkering, because we haven't figured it out yet.
Some people say it looks like tinkering, because there is a Tinkerer.

As for why God would have to tinker with his creation... he didn't 'have to'.
I personally believe that he chose to tinker, and leave evidence of his tinkering for a very specific purpose.

I think the Apostle Paul says it well (Romans 1:20)...
" For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made "

In Christ

Naturally I do not see tinkering, nor would I necessarily fail to give a god credit
for being able to see how to set it up so it runs irself.

You will get nowhere with me quoting "Paul" btw, I think he was an exploitrr and con man.

[Philip]

Audie: You will get nowhere with me quoting "Paul" btw, I think he was an exploiter and con man.

Audie, Paul's writings show him to a well-educated man of methodical, well-thought-out arguments and rational thought. You appear to think he was sane, but an evil, calculating, self-serving conman. But that makes no sense. Why did he give up his rising popularity, prestige and power with the Jewish leaders to join those he previously violently persecuted, and had seen as being the enemies of Judaism? To subsequently, instead, incur the wrath of the religious leaders, be willing to endure repeaded beatings, jailings, suffer hunger, and risk his very life for preaching a Resurrected Jesus? Really, he personally gave up everything to follow Jesus, the One he claimed he had encountered on the road to Damascus. His writings and the testomonies of others show him to be anything but a conman. And remember, the other Christians had previously greatly mistrusted and feared Paul, and yet later embraced him as a leader of the church. The conman accusation makes absolutely no sense - what did Paul have to gain by conning anyone? Why did those previously most wary and exceptionally fearful of him, who undoubtedly held his claim of conversion up to intense scrutiny, eventually embrace him as a leader?

[Audie]

Audie: You will get nowhere with me quoting "Paul" btw, I think he was an exploiter and con man.

Audie, Paul's writings show him to a well-educated man of methodical, well-thought-out arguments and rational thought. You appear to think he was sane, but an evil, calculating, self-serving conman. But that makes no sense. Why did he give up his rising popularity, prestige and power with the Jewish leaders to join those he previously violently persecuted, and had seen as being the enemies of Judaism? To subsequently, instead, incur the wrath of the religious leaders, be willing to endure repeaded beatings, jailings, suffer hunger, and risk his very life for preaching a Resurrected Jesus? Really, he personally gave up everything to follow Jesus, the One he claimed he had encountered on the road to Damascus. His writings and the testomonies of others show him to be anything but a conman. And remember, the other Christians had previously greatly mistrusted and feared Paul, and yet later embraced him as a leader of the church. The conman accusation makes absolutely no sense - what did Paul have to gain by conning anyone? Why did those previously most wary and exceptionally fearful of him, who undoubtedly held his claim of conversion up to intense scrutiny, eventually embrace him as a leader?

Who could say why so many people want to be seers, prophets, faith healers, founders of nee religions etc.

How many are legit?

[Philip]

Audie: You will get nowhere with me quoting "Paul" btw, I think he was an exploiter and con man

.

Philip: Audie, Paul's writings show him to a well-educated man of methodical, well-thought-out arguments and rational thought. You appear to think he was sane, but an evil, calculating, self-serving conman. But that makes no sense. Why did he give up his rising popularity, prestige and power with the Jewish leaders to join those he previously violently persecuted, and had seen as being the enemies of Judaism? To subsequently, instead, incur the wrath of the religious leaders, be willing to endure repeated beatings, jailings, suffer hunger, and risk his very life for preaching a Resurrected Jesus? Really, he personally gave up everything to follow Jesus, the One he claimed he had encountered on the road to Damascus. His writings and the testimonies of others show him to be anything but a conman. And remember, the other Christians had previously greatly mistrusted and feared Paul, and yet later embraced him as a leader of the church. The conman accusation makes absolutely no sense - what did Paul have to gain by conning anyone? Why did those previously most wary and exceptionally fearful of him, who undoubtedly held his claim of conversion up to intense scrutiny, eventually embrace him as a leader?

Audie: Who could say why so many people want to be seers, prophets, faith healers, founders of nee religions etc.

How many are legit?

Yes, Audie, many are deluded, or want control or power. Or have some massive sense of self importance. But you made a specific speculation about Paul, that you see him as an "exploiter and a con man." Please tell us why you draw this conclusion, because you have no evidence, only opinion. But the known facts reveal exactly the opposite. Same with Jesus - he was either a mad lunatic, a deluded liar and egotist, or He was Who He claimed to be. Same with all of the Apostles except one - they ALL went to their terrible deaths for preaching a Resurrected Jesus. Where they ALL lunatics with a death wish? They all well knew of the barbaric death Jesus was put to, of the unthinkable beating beforehand. They all knew they were risking the very same things - so, why would they do it? Were the ALL deranged? Did they ALL buy into a lie of Whom Jesus was - all knowing fully well that they either saw the risen Jesus or NOT? Did they all go to terrible deaths for a LIE - one they KNEW was a lie? Do their writings sound logical and factual, or do they seem fantastical and obsessed with supposed miracles and mysticism?

But let's start with Paul - you threw out an opinion, so I'd like to see from what evidence do you derive your belief? It would seem you simply dismiss him without really considering the evidence, as He claims Jesus to be God, AND that he actually saw Him. But let's begin with evidence from what we know about Paul, his background, and His prolific writings of great rhetorical, classically laid out logical arguments. He did not appeal to mere blind faith, but to logic and facts, and things widely known to the men of his day.

[Audie]

Audie: You will get nowhere with me quoting "Paul" btw, I think he was an exploiter and con man

.

Philip: Audie, Paul's writings show him to a well-educated man of methodical, well-thought-out arguments and rational thought. You appear to think he was sane, but an evil, calculating, self-serving conman. But that makes no sense. Why did he give up his rising popularity, prestige and power with the Jewish leaders to join those he previously violently persecuted, and had seen as being the enemies of Judaism? To subsequently, instead, incur the wrath of the religious leaders, be willing to endure repeated beatings, jailings, suffer hunger, and risk his very life for preaching a Resurrected Jesus? Really, he personally gave up everything to follow Jesus, the One he claimed he had encountered on the road to Damascus. His writings and the testimonies of others show him to be anything but a conman. And remember, the other Christians had previously greatly mistrusted and feared Paul, and yet later embraced him as a leader of the church. The conman accusation makes absolutely no sense - what did Paul have to gain by conning anyone? Why did those previously most wary and exceptionally fearful of him, who undoubtedly held his claim of conversion up to intense scrutiny, eventually embrace him as a leader?

Audie: Who could say why so many people want to be seers, prophets, faith healers, founders of nee religions etc.

How many are legit?

Yes, Audie, many are deluded, or want control or power. Or have some massive sense of self importance. But you made a specific speculation about Paul, that you see him as an "exploiter and a con man." Please tell us why you draw this conclusion, because you have no evidence, only opinion. But the known facts reveal exactly the opposite. Same with Jesus - he was either a mad lunatic, a deluded liar and egotist, or He was Who He claimed to be. Same with all of the Apostles except one - they ALL went to their terrible deaths for preaching a Resurrected Jesus. Where they ALL lunatics with a death wish? They all well knew of the barbaric death Jesus was put to, of the unthinkable beating beforehand. They all knew they were risking the very same things - so, why would they do it? Were the ALL deranged? Did they ALL buy into a lie of Whom Jesus was - all knowing fully well that they either saw the risen Jesus or NOT? Did they all go to terrible deaths for a LIE - one they KNEW was a lie? Do their writings sound logical and factual, or do they seem fantastical and obsessed with supposed miracles and mysticism?

But let's start with Paul - you threw out an opinion, so I'd like to see from what evidence do you derive your belief? It would seem you simply dismiss him without really considering the evidence, as He claims Jesus to be God, AND that he actually saw Him. But let's begin with evidence from what we know about Paul, his background, and His prolific writings of great rhetorical, classically laid out logical arguments. He did not appeal to mere blind faith, but to logic and facts, and things widely known to the men of his day.

Thank you for taking time with this. My impresdions of Paul are in part related to the rather obviously phonybsnske stoty.

An awful lot of people took risks for whatever base or noble reasons, that led them to the same grisly
fate.

I think "die for a lie" is a slogan that shortcircuits thinking / understanding in the same sort of way that
"my grandfather wssn't a monkey" does.

Same with the "either god, liar or lunatic" thing does.*

Who and what did Jesus actually say he was? The manger in Brthlehem story
is concocted from thin air. Such detail of an event but nobody knows when it happened!

But honestly, I dont know enough to hold my own in a debate. I hsve impresdions from divers sources
over how many years.

If there is something actually authoritative about Paul and in a readable style,
I will look at it after graduation.

* or "Jesus confirmed the flood, so there can be no doubt..unless, you know,
he was a liar or lunatic".

[Philip]

Audie, make no doubts about it, either Paul, the Apostles, and Jesus were speaking the truth about exactly who Jesus was, or they were all madder than hatters! Paul and the Apostles KNEW whether or not they had seen the risen Christ. And so, if they had NOT seen Him, and after well knowing of Jesus' barbaric death, to continue perpetuating belief in Him meant that they would likewise incurr the very same. And only the Apostle John, whom also remained faithful to Christ, did not die a martyrs death. So this "nobody" Rabbi and all mostly simple men (excepting to the well-educated Paul) changed an empire, and the world, and continue to.

BTW, Jesus Bethlehem birth was prophecied about 700 years before He was born. In fact, the place of His birth was but one of key prophecies ANYONE claiming to be the Messiah would have had to credibly fulfill. And collectively, they are complex enough that they can only point to Jesus. He had to be born at a certain time, with a certain lineage, in a certain tribe, in a small, specific place - and these are just a partial listing of the collective complex, probability-wise impossible criteria that anyone claiming to be the Messiah would have had to fulfill. And, in all of history, Jesus is the only one Who did. Add in the known facts and first century documentation and one should realize just how incredible all of this is.

Audie, I hope graduation brings so relief to you - when is that? Right now you must stay tired.

[Nessa]

Audie, I hope graduation brings so relief to you - when is that? Right now you must stay tired.

Don't listen to him audie! The rest of us want you to be refreshed.. Not stay tired

[abelcainsbrother]

Tricky, like erasing all evidence of the flood.
And, stop throwing out the stupid global flood straw man crap. I told you I don't believe in a global flood, so there wouldn't be any evidence for one.

BTW... the lack of physical evidence for an aleged 'global flood' is another problem with the Gap Theory.

YEC and the Gap Theory both assert a 'Global Flood' for which there is no geological evidence. They just place their global floods at different times in history.

In Christ

The difference is Gap Theorists make a much better argument for a global flood than YEC's have. YEC's are the reason so many people reject a global flood.Gap Theorists make a much better case for Noah's flood both biblically and scientifically. It may not prove it,but it still is a much,much better argument for a global flood. It matters how you teach a global flood happened and Gap Theorists do it well.

Again had Gap Theory creationism had been taught by the majority the theory of evolution would have been defeated by creationism along time ago,or at the very least would not be as popular,it would have much stiffer competition than it has had,only the most die-hard evolutionists would believe it. "A Lost world" is more believable than life evolves based on the evidence in the earth.

[abelcainsbrother]

Seriously RD? This is a really dimwit comment.

How so?

Start with the word "prove". You are unaware that science does not deal with "proof", or you are just being sloppy?

As for the intermediates, why dont you tell me, as ABE seems unable to do so, what a "transitional" or, "intermediate" fossil would be.

You seem to be onto some "absolute" here, tell me about it.

I have already explained what a transitional fossil should show. How about you explain why it is good for science to call them transitional fossils with such weak evidence? I hve already given a link and you can look and see no fossil shows transition,you don't have to be a Paleontologist to see there is no transition.

A link to a creo-vid? Wonderful.

You did not do anything even faintly resembling describing a transitional form.

Or address the thing about "fully formed".

If you cant or wont do that, dont bother to say anything, please.

If you want to discuss this go to my thread I made The Theory of Evolution vs The Gap Theory. We can debate and discuss it there.If not? Then I'm not wasting time in this thread explaining what a transition fossil should show and how it does'nt. I'd like to get into what the peer reviewed evidence used for evidence that live evolves only shows that God created life to breed and produce after its kind NOT that life evolves but also "Cladistics" for how scientists decided the common ancestors to show you how much of a joke it is.The lack of transitional fossils is just one problem.

[Audie]

You used enough words in two posts containing zero (0) information to have done a fine job of discussing transitional fossils. You said nothing because you haven't the least clue what you are talking about.

[abelcainsbrother]

You used enough words in two posts containing zero (0) information to have done a fine job of discussing transitional fossils. You said nothing because you haven't the least clue what you are talking about.

I do know what I'm talking about I explained how you could know what a transitional fossil is. I told you for your own good but you ignored it,then expect me to explain it to you.I would'nt have to if you'd do what I said,but you won't.You would'nt believe me anyway so I told you how you could know for yourself,you need to read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. I told you I did'nt want to discuss it in this thread so I explained how you could know what a transitional fossil should've shown. But whatever,I don't have a clue about evolution.

[Audie]

You used enough words in two posts containing zero (0) information to have done a fine job of discussing transitional fossils. You said nothing because you haven't the least clue what you are talking about.

I do know what I'm talking about I explained how you could know what a transitional fossil is. I told you for your own good but you ignored it,then expect me to explain it to you.I would'nt have to if you'd do what I said,but you won't.You would'nt believe me anyway so I told you how you could know for yourself,you need to read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. I told you I did'nt want to discuss it in this thread so I explained how you could know what a transitional fossil should've shown. But whatever,I don't have a clue about evolution.

The only line you needed is the last one and you blew that by attempting sarcasm.