Ark encounter

[Audie]

[quote="abelcainsbrother"

You've got your evolution blinders on.Take them off so you can see more clearly.Because if I had them on I wouldn't be able to see the fossils that shows the much different life that lived in the former world The only way you can prove me wrong is to show how they prove they were evolving and you cannot do it.I just removed fossils from you,you cannot use them for evidence for evolution now. They had nothing to do with Noah's flood too.

You still need to come to grips with the fact that polar ice proves there was no flood. Thus not gap.

I think overall it is kind of cool that you want to try to figure things out, and
do understand the idea of "deep time". Also, that you see as is so plainly the case, that life in the past and life today are not the same. You went off track in saying that it was "totally different", but perhaps that was just a way of speaking.

Regarding the fossil record, I am really kind of astonished that you have not
taken the little time needed to look up what the fossil record actually shows about life in the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Caroniferous etc.

Try it!

Like this..Cambrian https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 8b7d93.jpg

Devonian
https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/facul ... dev04b.gif

on land..http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/im ... 5_devo.jpg

Carboniferous forest// http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_map3r ... 1_1280.jpg

And so on. Quite-though not totally- different from eachother and from today.

You see clearly the differences from one era to another. Not just two "worlds-
"Previous world" and "present". There is far more to it than that. As even a cursory examination of life forms from different eras will show. Many "previous worlds". It is a very complex picture with lots of overlap, not consistent with any simple explanations.

Then too, there is the persistence of many life forms through the ages, up to the present. Some with very little evident change, others with the most obvious series of changes over perhaps tens of millions of years, then going extinct, or persisting to this day.

There is so much more to the story than you've so far looked into, and it is so much more interesting than any simplified version!

You are off to a good start, seeing that no 6000 yr history of earth could possibly account for the data.

I kind of hope you will just spend some more time in study, and hold back on
your conclusions until you have more of the picture.

We all have some times to give up cherished notions

One of the greatest breakthroughs is what one of my professors told me,
and it is to find the point where you are delighted, excited to find out you were wrong about something.

If someone could prove that ToE is wrong, it would be the most exciting thing
I ever heard or am likely to hear!

How can you say that polar ice proves there was no flood? We have dust in the ice sheets that shows a world wide drought that just so happens to coralate to the time of Noah's flood within the margin of error about 4300 years ago. Also dealing how old the polar ice is,how would you detect a flood which was a one year event? It would be like searching for a needle in a hay stack.Very difficult to do.But I'm not saying it can be proven,I mean,what can be proven as far as the past? But my evidence for a global flood is world wide dust that science has detected.They are not looking at it from a flood view point though,but I am. I see science has detected dust in the polar ice,in the sea,etc that shows a world wide drought that dates to the time of Noah's flood.Now whether or not you think it had something to do with a flood ,I doubt but the bottom line is there was a drought that happened at the time of Noah's flood,so something happened and I believe it has to do with Noah's flood.

But yes,I do like to figure things out.And yes I do see that the earth is old and yes I see that life in the past and life today are not the same.You seem to think though that it was not totally different and I'm not sure that we agree on this point because I do see totally different kind of life and not just with animals but also plant life also.I'm not sure this is much of a sticking point though so I can agree it was not the same.I can go with that.

I have looked up the fossils in the different layers of strata but I never memorized their names except for the Cambrian,but I've heard about the Cambrian explosion,so it is easy to remember.But I have taken the time to look at many different kind of fossils and I am aware that there are gaps in the fossil record.However IMO from the research I've done these gaps hurt evolution more than it would my theory.This is why I think you can see many different worlds but this hurts evolution more than it would the Gap Theory because of time,however I realize evolutionists,just forged ahead with punctuated equilibrium to speed things up when they realized this problem. Also my theory might be simple to you,but I think evolutionists complicate everything by imaging life evolves,especially when looking at fossils.In order to look at a fossil and claim it shows somehow this life was evolving just complicates what the fossil really and simply tells us.

Yes I will continue to spend more time in study as I know my weaknesses and strengths,still what I do know I know well but I'm not technical.I tend to keep thinks simple because it is easier for people to understand.To some it makes it seem like you don't know as much as you do,but it can be deceiving.A lot of times people just impress with all of these big words,but I prefer to keep it simple.

And I am willing to change if I realize somewhere I was wrong.However most people IMO have a hard time changing their mind,especially if its something they've invested a lot of time in.Kind of like a person who gets involved with a cult and they spend years dedicating their life to it,only to one day wake up and realize it is bad and they need to give it up and they change their mind about it and find a way out of it. Thanks for the chat and as far as I could tell a nicer tone than usual.

I think for you to convince me to accept evolution,like you.I would need you to give evidence and reasons you are convinced it is true according to science.I'm not sure this is the thread to discuss it.I would like to know what evidence convinces you it is right though because although it seems like a mountain of evidence as far as I can tell it lacks too much in very important ways,where it matters.

From my research I believe evolution creates a very big credibility problem and I expect better from science.

Every layer of polar ice contains dust, pollen, acid, volcanic ash etc. All of them.

I dont know where you get this "world wide dust'" thing. There is, though, no known or identifiable layer that is found world wide and can be connected to a flood. The geologists would have noticed it if were there, esp considering how hard some people have looked for it.


IF there were a world wide flood such as some imagine, topping the mountains, then
it would, yes, float the ice away. It would then break up, melt away. The ice is still there.

Of course, there are so many versions of what the "flood" may have been, as to when where how big etc.

What sort of flood are you imagining?

I realize you outright reject a flood.But I've explained that science has detected a world wide drought that produced dust in the polar ice,in the seas,etc and it dates to Noah's flood.You discount it,because you already have your mind made up a flood did not happen.I'!m not saying it is proof,only that it is evidence that something happened that effected the world at that time,and world wide too.

But I'm not having a one sided conversation where I give you evidence but you reject it without proving how fossils proves and shows that life was evolving.until you can? You cannot use the fossils for evidence for evolution and a former,different lost world fits the fossil evidence better than the ToE,so you prove and show how the fossils prove or show that the life was evolving.You provide evidence for what you believe because I already have.

There is little that engaging you on this can do other than annoy the bystanders, as your
education is so (deliberately) pitiful that you still have not even learned that science does not do proof. Then you say you know and understand the fossil record better than any scientist on earth, because your attitude is better. Same with geology, polar ice, any of it; you know more than anyone, but you dont know science doesnt do proof. Im not wasting any more of my time on you.

[Audie]

Some of that depends on How a person uses the term 'evolution'. Evolution = development Of. There have Always been 'birds' - various shapes, sizes. There is the ostrich and the hummingbird and roadrunner. They are all 'birds' -- none of them will mate and they didn't develop from one to the other. And, more important, they won't develop / evolve into something Else / given Time.
HOW the animals that were on the Ark became what we have Now? Haven't a clue. We Do have various animals to enjoy as pets, to eat and simply enjoy in nature / attempt to keep from getting eaten By /in nature.
Why is it okay to shoot rabbits/ deer / chickens, etc. to eat and not other people.

In bold is the only relevant statement, and, it is stating your opinion as fact. Do you feel that is a reasonable, or even moral thing to do?

[crochet1949]

There's a big difference between Understanding something and Agreeing with it. I understand evolution - but don't agree With it. And the thought is : an accurate understanding of will Result In the accepting Of. And those who Don't are simply too 'something'.

[crochet1949]

Audie -- for you and many others it Isn't 'reasonable', but 'moral' vs 'immoral' -- what does Morality have to do with it.
So - for sake of argument -- what did those birds I mentioned develop From? And I'm Not doing the 'millions/ billions' of years ago 'thing'.

[Audie]

Audie -- for you and many others it Isn't 'reasonable', but 'moral' vs 'immoral' -- what does Morality have to do with it.
So - for sake of argument -- what did those birds I mentioned develop From? And I'm Not doing the 'millions/ billions' of years ago 'thing'.

Moral has a lot to do with it. In court, to state an opinion as fact may well result in a charge of perjury. There are great moral problems if a jury came to a verdict on perjured testimony.

Your birds..

Are you aware that many dinosaurs are known to have had feathers, and that
there are fossil birds that had teeth? Some dinosaurs were pocket size, they were not all big.

Even a person with no eye for anatomy would notice the long lizard like tail
and that the hands and feet are way more like a lizards than a modern bird.
( am saying "lizard" rather than dinosaur, as you dont see many dinosaurs about but in S Texas its easy to find a lizard)

No anatomically modern birds are found in these ancient rocks. What could that mean?

This creature would have been a very weak flyer, but it clearly could fly.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MXNs1EWx89s/V ... fossil.jpg

And I'm Not doing the 'millions/ billions' of years ago 'thing'

If you start out refusing to consider the explanation, why do you bother to ask?

[Audie]

There's a big difference between Understanding something and Agreeing with it. I understand evolution - but don't agree With it. And the thought is : an accurate understanding of will Result In the accepting Of. And those who Don't are simply too 'something'.

Of course there is a big difference between understanding and agreeing.
I understand communism, I dont agree with it.

HOWEVER, there is very also a big difference between what you know of evolution, and understanding it.

An accurate understanding of math may not result in agreeing with it.
Using letters for numbers looks odd, at first. Once algebra is explained, and you practice it a bit, well,you can still refuse to agree with it.

That would be for sure an example of being "too something".

None of the people I run across who do not accept ToE have even the most
basic understanding of it. Your q about birds would be a good example.

[abelcainsbrother]

You still need to come to grips with the fact that polar ice proves there was no flood. Thus not gap.

I think overall it is kind of cool that you want to try to figure things out, and
do understand the idea of "deep time". Also, that you see as is so plainly the case, that life in the past and life today are not the same. You went off track in saying that it was "totally different", but perhaps that was just a way of speaking.

Regarding the fossil record, I am really kind of astonished that you have not
taken the little time needed to look up what the fossil record actually shows about life in the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Caroniferous etc.

Try it!

Like this..Cambrian https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 8b7d93.jpg

Devonian
https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/facul ... dev04b.gif

on land..http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/im ... 5_devo.jpg

Carboniferous forest// http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_map3r ... 1_1280.jpg

And so on. Quite-though not totally- different from eachother and from today.

You see clearly the differences from one era to another. Not just two "worlds-
"Previous world" and "present". There is far more to it than that. As even a cursory examination of life forms from different eras will show. Many "previous worlds". It is a very complex picture with lots of overlap, not consistent with any simple explanations.

Then too, there is the persistence of many life forms through the ages, up to the present. Some with very little evident change, others with the most obvious series of changes over perhaps tens of millions of years, then going extinct, or persisting to this day.

There is so much more to the story than you've so far looked into, and it is so much more interesting than any simplified version!

You are off to a good start, seeing that no 6000 yr history of earth could possibly account for the data.

I kind of hope you will just spend some more time in study, and hold back on
your conclusions until you have more of the picture.

We all have some times to give up cherished notions

One of the greatest breakthroughs is what one of my professors told me,
and it is to find the point where you are delighted, excited to find out you were wrong about something.

If someone could prove that ToE is wrong, it would be the most exciting thing
I ever heard or am likely to hear!

How can you say that polar ice proves there was no flood? We have dust in the ice sheets that shows a world wide drought that just so happens to coralate to the time of Noah's flood within the margin of error about 4300 years ago. Also dealing how old the polar ice is,how would you detect a flood which was a one year event? It would be like searching for a needle in a hay stack.Very difficult to do.But I'm not saying it can be proven,I mean,what can be proven as far as the past? But my evidence for a global flood is world wide dust that science has detected.They are not looking at it from a flood view point though,but I am. I see science has detected dust in the polar ice,in the sea,etc that shows a world wide drought that dates to the time of Noah's flood.Now whether or not you think it had something to do with a flood ,I doubt but the bottom line is there was a drought that happened at the time of Noah's flood,so something happened and I believe it has to do with Noah's flood.

But yes,I do like to figure things out.And yes I do see that the earth is old and yes I see that life in the past and life today are not the same.You seem to think though that it was not totally different and I'm not sure that we agree on this point because I do see totally different kind of life and not just with animals but also plant life also.I'm not sure this is much of a sticking point though so I can agree it was not the same.I can go with that.

I have looked up the fossils in the different layers of strata but I never memorized their names except for the Cambrian,but I've heard about the Cambrian explosion,so it is easy to remember.But I have taken the time to look at many different kind of fossils and I am aware that there are gaps in the fossil record.However IMO from the research I've done these gaps hurt evolution more than it would my theory.This is why I think you can see many different worlds but this hurts evolution more than it would the Gap Theory because of time,however I realize evolutionists,just forged ahead with punctuated equilibrium to speed things up when they realized this problem. Also my theory might be simple to you,but I think evolutionists complicate everything by imaging life evolves,especially when looking at fossils.In order to look at a fossil and claim it shows somehow this life was evolving just complicates what the fossil really and simply tells us.

Yes I will continue to spend more time in study as I know my weaknesses and strengths,still what I do know I know well but I'm not technical.I tend to keep thinks simple because it is easier for people to understand.To some it makes it seem like you don't know as much as you do,but it can be deceiving.A lot of times people just impress with all of these big words,but I prefer to keep it simple.

And I am willing to change if I realize somewhere I was wrong.However most people IMO have a hard time changing their mind,especially if its something they've invested a lot of time in.Kind of like a person who gets involved with a cult and they spend years dedicating their life to it,only to one day wake up and realize it is bad and they need to give it up and they change their mind about it and find a way out of it. Thanks for the chat and as far as I could tell a nicer tone than usual.

I think for you to convince me to accept evolution,like you.I would need you to give evidence and reasons you are convinced it is true according to science.I'm not sure this is the thread to discuss it.I would like to know what evidence convinces you it is right though because although it seems like a mountain of evidence as far as I can tell it lacks too much in very important ways,where it matters.

From my research I believe evolution creates a very big credibility problem and I expect better from science.

Every layer of polar ice contains dust, pollen, acid, volcanic ash etc. All of them.

I dont know where you get this "world wide dust'" thing. There is, though, no known or identifiable layer that is found world wide and can be connected to a flood. The geologists would have noticed it if were there, esp considering how hard some people have looked for it.


IF there were a world wide flood such as some imagine, topping the mountains, then
it would, yes, float the ice away. It would then break up, melt away. The ice is still there.

Of course, there are so many versions of what the "flood" may have been, as to when where how big etc.

What sort of flood are you imagining?

I realize you outright reject a flood.But I've explained that science has detected a world wide drought that produced dust in the polar ice,in the seas,etc and it dates to Noah's flood.You discount it,because you already have your mind made up a flood did not happen.I'!m not saying it is proof,only that it is evidence that something happened that effected the world at that time,and world wide too.

But I'm not having a one sided conversation where I give you evidence but you reject it without proving how fossils proves and shows that life was evolving.until you can? You cannot use the fossils for evidence for evolution and a former,different lost world fits the fossil evidence better than the ToE,so you prove and show how the fossils prove or show that the life was evolving.You provide evidence for what you believe because I already have.

There is little that engaging you on this can do other than annoy the bystanders, as your
education is so (deliberately) pitiful that you still have not even learned that science does not do proof. Then you say you know and understand the fossil record better than any scientist on earth, because your attitude is better. Same with geology, polar ice, any of it; you know more than anyone, but you dont know science doesnt do proof. Im not wasting any more of my time on you.

I never said any of that,you are putting words in my mouth.You still refuse to give evidence like I did You just expect us to believe you,without evidence. But the ToE doesn't want to tangle with the Gap Theory because a former different world fits the evidence in the earth better than the ToE. In the 1980's evolutionists lost debates in Universities against Gap Creationists,so much so they stopped debating Gap creationists because they were losing so bad,they would only debate young earth creationists. A lost world is not a stupid idea like you seem to think and this is what the evidence in and around the earth tells us,it does not tell us life evolves,that is evolution imagination.

[hughfarey]

Some of that depends on How a person uses the term 'evolution'. Evolution = development Of. There have Always been 'birds' - various shapes, sizes. There is the ostrich and the hummingbird and roadrunner. They are all 'birds' -- none of them will mate and they didn't develop from one to the other. And, more important, they won't develop / evolve into something Else / given Time.

You're almost so right, Crotchet. The ostrich and the hummingbird and the road runner don't mate with each other, and they don't produce half-and-half chicks. They are completely different species. Just like all the other 9950 species of bird. The trouble is, according to Ark Encounter, that Noah only took 1500 different "kinds" of animals in total. And they weren't all, or even mostly, birds. So where do you think all these modern species of birds came from? A bit of a poser, eh?

HOW the animals that were on the Ark became what we have Now? Haven't a clue.

It couldn't be that they evolved, could it? Just askin'...

We Do have various animals to enjoy as pets, to eat and simply enjoy in nature / attempt to keep from getting eaten By /in nature. Why is it okay to shoot rabbits/ deer / chickens, etc. to eat and not other people.

The theory of evolution explains that quite well.

[hughfarey]

But the ToE doesn't want to tangle with the Gap Theory because a former different world fits the evidence in the earth better than the ToE. In the 1980's evolutionists lost debates in Universities against Gap Creationists,so much so they stopped debating Gap creationists because they were losing so bad,they would only debate young earth creationists. A lost world is not a stupid idea like you seem to think and this is what the evidence in and around the earth tells us,it does not tell us life evolves,that is evolution imagination.

Oh, tut, abelcainsbrother, you know that's not true. Mostly evolutionists don't want to tangle with gap theorists because gap theory is such a minority view even among biblical literalists that it hardly seems worthwhile. It is wholly untrue that evolutionists lost debates against gap theorists in he 1980s. Gap theory is denounced on every single creationist website except one (kjvbible.org). Even the most optimistic gap theorist can hardly call that victory. It may be that the idea of a lost world is not stupid, but it certainly isn't supported by any evidence. Not unless you can produce something a bit more convincing for your world-wide flood than a layer of dust on a seafloor next to a desert.

[crochet1949]

Some of that depends on How a person uses the term 'evolution'. Evolution = development Of. There have Always been 'birds' - various shapes, sizes. There is the ostrich and the hummingbird and roadrunner. They are all 'birds' -- none of them will mate and they didn't develop from one to the other. And, more important, they won't develop / evolve into something Else / given Time.

You're almost so right, Crotchet. The ostrich and the hummingbird and the road runner don't mate with each other, and they don't produce half-and-half chicks. They are completely different species. Just like all the other 9950 species of bird. The trouble is, according to Ark Encounter, that Noah only took 1500 different "kinds" of animals in total. And they weren't all, or even mostly, birds. So where do you think all these modern species of birds came from? A bit of a poser, eh?

HOW the animals that were on the Ark became what we have Now? Haven't a clue.

It couldn't be that they evolved, could it? Just askin'...

We Do have various animals to enjoy as pets, to eat and simply enjoy in nature / attempt to keep from getting eaten By /in nature. Why is it okay to shoot rabbits/ deer / chickens, etc. to eat and not other people.

The theory of evolution explains that quite well.

Where do you get your 1500 different 'kinds' of animals in total?
According to Genesis 6: 19 "You are to bring into the ark Two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to kept alive."
We have no idea how many were alive at that time --- vs 8 "Pairs of clean and unclean animals , of birds and all creatures that move on the ground." Chapter 7: 2 "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animals, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate , and 7 of every kind of bird , male and female , to keep it's various kinds alive throughout the earth."
So -- where do you get your number of 1500?
All that Genesis tells us is that God DID create 'them'. So that everything thing that existed came from God. Right then and there. He didn't tell us how many -- just that He Did it.
You're also saying that the theory of evolution explains why it's okay to shoot animals and not other people? Explain.

[Katabole]

gap theory is such a minority view even among biblical literalists

Why is it when something is in the minority view, it automatically has to be considered false?

There are seven churches described in the book of Revelation in ch 2 & 3. Of the seven churches, there are only two that Christ did not find fault with; the church of Smyrna and the church of Philadelphia. The two churches are a minority among the seven.

Could you please explain the following verses using Theistic evolution?

Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

It clearly says Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs by God Himself. Not an evolutionary process.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

If physical reality is what is seen in the material world, and as the above verse states, physical reality (the universe, worlds, ages) were not made out of things that are visible, how can theistic evolution be used as an explanation for the development of life, considering it is based on a process that involves visible matter?

[abelcainsbrother]

But the ToE doesn't want to tangle with the Gap Theory because a former different world fits the evidence in the earth better than the ToE. In the 1980's evolutionists lost debates in Universities against Gap Creationists,so much so they stopped debating Gap creationists because they were losing so bad,they would only debate young earth creationists. A lost world is not a stupid idea like you seem to think and this is what the evidence in and around the earth tells us,it does not tell us life evolves,that is evolution imagination.

Oh, tut, abelcainsbrother, you know that's not true. Mostly evolutionists don't want to tangle with gap theorists because gap theory is such a minority view even among biblical literalists that it hardly seems worthwhile. It is wholly untrue that evolutionists lost debates against gap theorists in he 1980s. Gap theory is denounced on every single creationist website except one (kjvbible.org). Even the most optimistic gap theorist can hardly call that victory. It may be that the idea of a lost world is not stupid, but it certainly isn't supported by any evidence. Not unless you can produce something a bit more convincing for your world-wide flood than a layer of dust on a seafloor next to a desert.

I know very well the Gap Theory is not as popular as it used to be and other creation theories are more popular but this is mostly because of big creation ministries that promote other creation theories.But it is true that Gap Creationists defeated evolutionists in debates in the 1980's. The reason why the Gap Theory has and can defeat evolution is because it uses much of the same evidence evolutionists use in order to confirm a much more believable theory based on the evidence than evolution.I know you doubt it,and a lot of others do too but the evidence better fits a lost world than it does evolution. Like when it comes to fossils,there is no way you could convince people by looking at the fossils it shows this life was evolving,so a former world fits the fossil evidence better than it does evolution. All you can do is just declare life was evolving,but as the fossils are shown there is nothing about any of them that would lead a person to believe that life was evolving.And so just based on this a for!er world with different kind of life in it,a lost world makes the most sense based on looking at the fossils. This is just one example too.

I believe Christians have been well intentioned but unfortunately have used the wrong creation theories against evolution and if the Gap Theory had as big as a platform as the other creation theories do evolution would not be so believed and accepted by so many people. Sure the Gap Theory may not can change science but it can change minds when it comes to what the evidence in the earth is telling us. I believe a lost world makes much more sense and would be much more believable and appealing than evolution,only the die harders would remain. Also I've just been using the fossils for evidence and have not had to get into any more,but it is enough to be interesting for people to be able to consider the idea of a lost world based on fossils that show the kinds of life that lived in it.

As far as Noah's flood that is a separate issue from the Gap Theory but even if it can't be proven a world wide drought that dates to Noah's flood that shows that secular science detects a drought and this evidence makes the most sense to me if you believe Noah's flood was global,even if it is not proof.

[crochet1949]

So what did Jesus mean by, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"?

Maybe you should ask a dispensationalist. They know about that.

This is way out of present contexts -- but I'd like to answer it.
The Old testament was in the 'age' of the Law -- and it was pointing mankind to the fact that it's Impossible to obey All Those Laws all the time. Trying to Earn one's salvation simply isn't possible. Which is why a 'Savior' was needed. Every year there were sacrifices of animals made to God for the temporary forgiveness of sins.
Which led to the birth of Jesus Christ to Become the Perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Thus the age of Grace began. Ephesians 2:8 & 9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith, That not of yourselves it is the gift of God ; not of works lest any man should boast."
So we don't throw out the Old Testament / the New Testament fulfills it. Cause it Is All of God's Word. No one takes any of it Out and it doesn't get Added To.

[hughfarey]

Thank you all for your recent replies.

Crotchet: My information about the 1500 kinds of animals in the ark comes from the Ark Encounter website, a group of Young Earth Creationists like yourself. And your rather convoluted explanation of why the laws of the Old Testament do not apply to us, even though Jesus personally announced that he wasn't going to change any of it, is an interesting interpretation - indeed, it is not far from my own interpretation - but it is an interpretation directly contradictory to the actual words of Jesus. It is interesting that interpretations contradicting the exact words of the bible are permitted to you, but not to me.

Katabole: Minorities should never automatically considered false. However, one of the reasons for becoming a minority is that a view has been carefully considered and found wanting. Gap Theory, like other Creationist theories, depends primarily on belief in a literal interpretation of the bible, a belief I do not hold. I don't think Gap Theory is any wronger than any of the others, nor that any of the others are more correct.

Regarding Genesis 2, I do not believe this is intended to be taken literally, and in fact, it is now to be rejected, in line with Crotchet's views about laws above, as no longer applicable. It was written to illustrate woman's proper subservience to, and dependence on, man, which had some social and evolutionary relevance 6000 years ago, but is no longer acceptable.

Regarding Hebrews 11, St Paul was bang on. Most scientists today do consider that the Universe derived from the invisible. The development of life, which Paul was not referring to, derived from what was there already. It still does.

Abelcainsbrother: You are simply making the same unsubstantiated assertions as before. You think that the evidence supports gap theory better than evolution. I disagree. You think that the fossil record doesn't demonstrate evolution. I disagree. You claim there is other evidence for the gap theory. I disagree. You believe that if gap theory was given a fair hearing it would be seen as more believable and appealing than evolution. I think it has been given a fair hearing and I disagree. The only evidence for any of your assertions you have given is related to a 'world wide drought. The only place I have been able to examine this evidence is at kjvbible.org, but I have examined the evidence presented and find it unsatisfactory.

What all these responses to my comment illustrate best is that no-one should be certain that their own personal interpretation of the bible is correct, or even reasonable. The greatest differences between different interpretations are not between Creationist and Evolutionist views, but among Creationists themselves. Whereas evolutionists, and cosmogenists, all believe roughly the same thing, the various Creationist views are wholly incompatible with each other. By their own words in these last few weeks, even those creationists who adhere most closely to the original theme of this site have demonstrated that there can be no literal reading of the words of the bible, and that therefore, any recourse to the truth merely from the literal words alone cannot be justified.

[crochet1949]

hughfarey
The Old Testament/ New Testament --- The Ten Commandments were given in Exodus 20 to Moses by God. Actually they were given to the Children of Israel -- the people God chose special for Himself. The Are repeated in the New Testament except for Sabbath worship -- But - we are Also told that Jesus , Himself, tells us the Better way is to follow the New Commandment -- we are to 'love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind and the second is to love our neighbor as ourselves. And that if we do those two things we are fulfilling the concept of the law.
In the book of Mark , chapter 12:28 and the verses that follow. One of the teachers of the law was hearing a debate about which of the commandments was the greatest in importance. And Jesus responds back with the previous paragraph.
And there is a passage in Matthew 5 vss 17 end of chapter or so that says Jesus came Not to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them. He is up-grading His law and showing His Better way. Because if we love the Lord the way we Should then we should, in turn, have a better attitude towards our 'neighbor' those around us. We won't be Doing those things against them. The temptations To do those things will still be there, but we Can resist the temptation IF we want to With the help / strength of the Holy Spirit / God.

As for women's dependence upon men -- Genesis 2 -- the world has 'modernized' -- the feminist movement has crept in. But that doesn't negate God's Word. God created man first and then the woman. Adam was created first and then Eve -- taken out of Adam. He needed a companion and was given one. That doesn't mean that every single man is going to get married and every woman is to be a helpmeet to a man -- but a woman being a teacher / nurse are roles she would have as a mother. The agrarian life-style -- the husband and wife and potential kids in the family -- 'worked' the farm.
Just because a woman Can doesn't mean she Should or that she's really better off being Able To.