Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Philip wrote:SIGH

One of these days you'll be smiling when you actually see what happens when an evolutionist tangles with a knowledgable Gap Theorist and is totally defeated,unlike with YEC or ID.Some people just have to see it to believe it.

GAP has been around since the late 18th century, and we're to believe that proof is yet to be forthcoming. Good luck with that.

ACB: The idea of Neanderthal man being from Cain may be possible. But I wouldn't say the bigger eyebrow ridge (supra orbital ridge) is the mark of Cain. Many early humans and hominids have that ridge, and some modern people have it too like Aborigines and some Caucasians. But, Neanderthals were possibly 3x as strong as Homo Sapiens. That is figured out from using forensics and seeing how muscles would attach to the bones. While it was a good thing in the rough Ice Age climate it could've been the mark of Cain-if you make a Neanderthal person mad they might tear you apart or break your bones literally.
As for brutes, modern findings show they were about the same as early Homo Sapiens- they had and made ornaments, possibly used paint, had sewing and leather too.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/defaul ... k=MUYEho77
https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/upl ... rthal1.jpg
I guess we can agree to disagree, this isn't really an important issue, just an interesting one.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:ACB: The idea of Neanderthal man being from Cain may be possible. But I wouldn't say the bigger eyebrow ridge (supra orbital ridge) is the mark of Cain. Many early humans and hominids have that ridge, and some modern people have it too like Aborigines and some Caucasians. But, Neanderthals were possibly 3x as strong as Homo Sapiens. That is figured out from using forensics and seeing how muscles would attach to the bones. While it was a good thing in the rough Ice Age climate it could've been the mark of Cain-if you make a Neanderthal person mad they might tear you apart or break your bones literally.
As for brutes, modern findings show they were about the same as early Homo Sapiens- they had and made ornaments, possibly used paint, had sewing and leather too.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/defaul ... k=MUYEho77
https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/upl ... rthal1.jpg
I guess we can agree to disagree, this isn't really an important issue, just an interesting one.

I think the most important thing that I was trying to point out is that the word "replenish" that the KJV used when God created man and woman in Genesis 1:28 was confirmed correct once hominids and neanderthals were found.I know that most newer translations translate it "fill" but it does not change the fact that the KJV was confirmed correct hundreds of years after it was translated once modern science started and hominids were found.It was Gap Theorists that came up with the idea of "Pre-Adamite races" from reading the bible before they were really even discovered and it was confirmed correct.These newer translations have it wrong.I think it is because of the YEC influence since about the 1970's.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:ACB: The idea of Neanderthal man being from Cain may be possible. But I wouldn't say the bigger eyebrow ridge (supra orbital ridge) is the mark of Cain. Many early humans and hominids have that ridge, and some modern people have it too like Aborigines and some Caucasians. But, Neanderthals were possibly 3x as strong as Homo Sapiens. That is figured out from using forensics and seeing how muscles would attach to the bones. While it was a good thing in the rough Ice Age climate it could've been the mark of Cain-if you make a Neanderthal person mad they might tear you apart or break your bones literally.
As for brutes, modern findings show they were about the same as early Homo Sapiens- they had and made ornaments, possibly used paint, had sewing and leather too.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/defaul ... k=MUYEho77
https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/upl ... rthal1.jpg
I guess we can agree to disagree, this isn't really an important issue, just an interesting one.

I think the most important thing that I was trying to point out is that the word "replenish" that the KJV used when God created man and woman in Genesis 1:28 was confirmed correct once hominids and neanderthals were found.I know that most newer translations translate it "fill" but it does not change the fact that the KJV was confirmed correct hundreds of years after it was translated once modern science started and hominids were found.It was Gap Theorists that came up with the idea of "Pre-Adamite races" from reading the bible before they were really even discovered and it was confirmed correct.These newer translations have it wrong.I think it is because of the YEC influence since about the 1970's.

Not this again?!?!

You've already been shown about the meaning of replenish, earlier in this thread. This is tiring ACB.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Philip wrote:SIGH

One of these days you'll be smiling when you actually see what happens when an evolutionist tangles with a knowledgable Gap Theorist and is totally defeated,unlike with YEC or ID.Some people just have to see it to believe it.

I'm perhaps the only person, ( maybe "Hugh Frey" as well) on this board that you can call an evolutionist, that I appeal to naturalism in almost all ways. I am yet to be convinced or impressed.

The only way to defeat the TOE, is to present evidence against it. I can reject GT and your argument for it based on your weak and in some cases just wrong interpretation, and apparent lack of respect for Hebrew grammar.

On the other hand, no one can do the same with TOE. You have to find evidence to the contrary to actually "defeat" it. Which you don't suppose is needed but really it does.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Philip wrote:SIGH

One of these days you'll be smiling when you actually see what happens when an evolutionist tangles with a knowledgable Gap Theorist and is totally defeated,unlike with YEC or ID.Some people just have to see it to believe it.

I'm perhaps the only person, ( maybe "Hugh Frey" as well) on this board that you can call an evolutionist, that I appeal to naturalism in almost all ways. I am yet to be convinced or impressed.

The only way to defeat the TOE, is to present evidence against it. I can reject GT and your argument for it based on your weak and in some cases just wrong interpretation, and apparent lack of respect for Hebrew grammar.

On the other hand, no one can do the same with TOE. You have to find evidence to the contrary to actually "defeat" it. Which you don't suppose is needed but really it does.

Neo,

That's simply not true. All one has to do is use the Gap Theory against evolution, and evolution will be defeated.*



*Extremely obvious(I hope) sarcasm.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:ACB: The idea of Neanderthal man being from Cain may be possible. But I wouldn't say the bigger eyebrow ridge (supra orbital ridge) is the mark of Cain. Many early humans and hominids have that ridge, and some modern people have it too like Aborigines and some Caucasians. But, Neanderthals were possibly 3x as strong as Homo Sapiens. That is figured out from using forensics and seeing how muscles would attach to the bones. While it was a good thing in the rough Ice Age climate it could've been the mark of Cain-if you make a Neanderthal person mad they might tear you apart or break your bones literally.
As for brutes, modern findings show they were about the same as early Homo Sapiens- they had and made ornaments, possibly used paint, had sewing and leather too.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/defaul ... k=MUYEho77
https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/upl ... rthal1.jpg
I guess we can agree to disagree, this isn't really an important issue, just an interesting one.

I think the most important thing that I was trying to point out is that the word "replenish" that the KJV used when God created man and woman in Genesis 1:28 was confirmed correct once hominids and neanderthals were found.I know that most newer translations translate it "fill" but it does not change the fact that the KJV was confirmed correct hundreds of years after it was translated once modern science started and hominids were found.It was Gap Theorists that came up with the idea of "Pre-Adamite races" from reading the bible before they were really even discovered and it was confirmed correct.These newer translations have it wrong.I think it is because of the YEC influence since about the 1970's.

Not this again?!?!

You've already been shown about the meaning of replenish, earlier in this thread. This is tiring ACB.

The evidence proves "fill" is wrong and "replenish" is correct.You know it is confirmed correct too and yet for some reason ignore it to believe a translation that is wrong,Why? Especially as a Day Ager who believes hominids were before man too,why ignore the evidence and just believe what some bible scholar claims?You're not a YEC and yet you're arguing like one insisting it means "fill". Why must all of you ignore evidence that replenish is the correct translation based on the fact that hominids come before man?So fill cannot be right and replenish is correct just like the KJV translators translated it. Now I cannot control what you believe but I go by evidence to determine who is right and who is wrong to the best of my abilities and this is why I believe this interpretation.It is based on the evidence.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Philip wrote:SIGH

One of these days you'll be smiling when you actually see what happens when an evolutionist tangles with a knowledgable Gap Theorist and is totally defeated,unlike with YEC or ID.Some people just have to see it to believe it.

I'm perhaps the only person, ( maybe "Hugh Frey" as well) on this board that you can call an evolutionist, that I appeal to naturalism in almost all ways. I am yet to be convinced or impressed.

The only way to defeat the TOE, is to present evidence against it. I can reject GT and your argument for it based on your weak and in some cases just wrong interpretation, and apparent lack of respect for Hebrew grammar.

On the other hand, no one can do the same with TOE. You have to find evidence to the contrary to actually "defeat" it. Which you don't suppose is needed but really it does.

The Gap Theory can defeat the Theory of Evolution even if you was able to show by Hebrew why you think it is wrong. Because "A Lost World" is still more believable than the theory of evolution based on the evidence that has been dug out of the earth.Once all of the evidence is laid out a lost world without evolution will be more interesting and believable to people over the Theory of Evolution. This is a big reason why I believe The Gap Theory is the correct creation interpretation. The thing is though is nobody has ever seen a debate against a knowledgable Gap Theorist who knows how to blend science into this interpretation and an expert evolutionist and so you doubt it. I have been testing out the Gap Theory against evolutionists on and off for awhile now and I know how effective it is against evolution. All I get these days is evolutionists hiding behind peer review and just declaring evolution is true.

ACB wrote:
I have been testing out the Gap Theory against evolutionists on and off for awhile now and I know how effective it is against evolution.

Oh, now I get it! You come here to test all your ridiculous arguments for the Gap Theory, and you use all the really good arguments somewhere else!

ACB - you are ignoring the fact that there are other explanations for the evidences - besides GAP and evolution.

RickD wrote:

ACB wrote:
I have been testing out the Gap Theory against evolutionists on and off for awhile now and I know how effective it is against evolution.

Oh, now I get it! You come here to test all your ridiculous arguments for the Gap Theory, and you use all the really good arguments somewhere else!

Here is an example.When you click on this link go down to the comment section and the very first comment should be by PZ Meyers and read through the comments.
https://youtu.be/8wpC91zR8ek

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Philip wrote:SIGH

One of these days you'll be smiling when you actually see what happens when an evolutionist tangles with a knowledgable Gap Theorist and is totally defeated,unlike with YEC or ID.Some people just have to see it to believe it.

I'm perhaps the only person, ( maybe "Hugh Frey" as well) on this board that you can call an evolutionist, that I appeal to naturalism in almost all ways. I am yet to be convinced or impressed.

The only way to defeat the TOE, is to present evidence against it. I can reject GT and your argument for it based on your weak and in some cases just wrong interpretation, and apparent lack of respect for Hebrew grammar.

On the other hand, no one can do the same with TOE. You have to find evidence to the contrary to actually "defeat" it. Which you don't suppose is needed but really it does.

The Gap Theory can defeat the Theory of Evolution even if you was able to show by Hebrew why you think it is wrong. Because "A Lost World" is still more believable than the theory of evolution based on the evidence that has been dug out of the earth.Once all of the evidence is laid out a lost world without evolution will be more interesting and believable to people over the Theory of Evolution. This is a big reason why I believe The Gap Theory is the correct creation interpretation. The thing is though is nobody has ever seen a debate against a knowledgable Gap Theorist who knows how to blend science into this interpretation and an expert evolutionist and so you doubt it. I have been testing out the Gap Theory against evolutionists on and off for awhile now and I know how effective it is against evolution. All I get these days is evolutionists hiding behind peer review and just declaring evolution is true.

I think you are giving yourself too many brownie points.

Do you know why I accept evolution?
Hint: It has nothing to do with whats more believable.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

ACB wrote:
I have been testing out the Gap Theory against evolutionists on and off for awhile now and I know how effective it is against evolution.

Oh, now I get it! You come here to test all your ridiculous arguments for the Gap Theory, and you use all the really good arguments somewhere else!

Here is an example.When you click on this link go down to the comment section and the very first comment should be by PZ Meyers and read through the comments.
https://youtu.be/8wpC91zR8ek

Regarding the discussion on transitional fossils, maybe you mean there aren't enough transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx looks like a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, but what about all the other transitions in between the dinosaurs and Arch. and Arch. and the birds? (I think someone admitted there that Arch. is not the direct ancestor of birds, but only that they have a common ancestor.) Transition is like a spectrum, after all. You could say orange is a transitionary colour between red and yellow, but what about all the different shades of red-orange and orange-yellow in between? It's possible that there are many more fossils of organisms evolutionarily-in-between others which haven't been found yet.

I think you should avoid using the phrase 'fully-formed' though. Every creature is fully formed - apart from some unfortunate individual organisms which had something go wrong before they were born (or however they came into the world). You can't really say a whole population or species was not fully formed. In the theory of evolution, evolution has no goal in mind (e.g. getting from one species to another). Individuals have offspring which are very similar to their parents, except some have mutations in their genes, which are passed on to their offspring if they allow survival and reproduction. Some of the genetic mutations are beneficial and result in greater survival for the population than they would have had otherwise, resulting in more reproduction and the continuation of the change caused by the mutation, etc etc. So each individual and species just is what it is because of the genes it received - not because it's going to be a transitional form between one species and another.

Nicki wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

ACB wrote:
I have been testing out the Gap Theory against evolutionists on and off for awhile now and I know how effective it is against evolution.

Oh, now I get it! You come here to test all your ridiculous arguments for the Gap Theory, and you use all the really good arguments somewhere else!

Here is an example.When you click on this link go down to the comment section and the very first comment should be by PZ Meyers and read through the comments.
https://youtu.be/8wpC91zR8ek

Regarding the discussion on transitional fossils, maybe you mean there aren't enough transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx looks like a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, but what about all the other transitions in between the dinosaurs and Arch. and Arch. and the birds? (I think someone admitted there that Arch. is not the direct ancestor of birds, but only that they have a common ancestor.) Transition is like a spectrum, after all. You could say orange is a transitionary colour between red and yellow, but what about all the different shades of red-orange and orange-yellow in between? It's possible that there are many more fossils of organisms evolutionarily-in-between others which haven't been found yet.

I think you should avoid using the phrase 'fully-formed' though. Every creature is fully formed - apart from some unfortunate individual organisms which had something go wrong before they were born (or however they came into the world). You can't really say a whole population or species was not fully formed. In the theory of evolution, evolution has no goal in mind (e.g. getting from one species to another). Individuals have offspring which are very similar to their parents, except some have mutations in their genes, which are passed on to their offspring if they allow survival and reproduction. Some of the genetic mutations are beneficial and result in greater survival for the population than they would have had otherwise, resulting in more reproduction and the continuation of the change caused by the mutation, etc etc. So each individual and species just is what it is because of the genes it received - not because it's going to be a transitional form between one species and another.

I appreciate constructive criticism and I think the reason why I make such a big deal out of no transitional fossils is because of Charles Darwin and what he said about fossils and the lack of intermediate fossils found but the prediction that they would be found.This is an important thing to point out when discussing fossils and evolution.I'm trying to point out that evolutionists have the same problem today with alot more fossils found as Darwin did,and that is the lack of intermediate fossils.And by pointing out that all fossils show fully formed creatures it also makes a case for them just being the kinds of life that once lived in the former world. Just because Archy has wings does not mean it was evolving from a Dinosaur into a bird.

But I do think I could word it better than I am.Because I know evolutionists do not believe that any life shows evidence of transitioning,etc but to me this is a devastating blow to evolution and it was falsified long ago based on the lack of intermediate fossils found.They were supposed to be found and yet were not found despite the Evolution tree of life.

Also when you bring up mutations implying that some are beneficial and result in greater survival of the population. I'm not sure I agree with this based on the evidence I have seen for evolution.To me it is an evolutionary myth made up to help make evolution more believable due to the lack of a credible mechanism for how life evolves.I think it is more important to focus on what their evidence shows and not so much on what is explained. Based on many experiments mutations have never been shown to lead to speciation or evolving above the species level and so they cannot use mutations as an explanation for evolution when their evidence does not back it up.There are many evolution myths that are just made up just based on assumption and the belief evolution is true.They have literally made it up as they have went along.