gluadys said:
Not in any way that agrees with the reality of God's creation.
Oh! Yessss, it does! (see! I can do just like you do.)
Yes, in the one possible way that upon testing agrees with and explains observations of nature.
You cnly can see what hints at what you call evolution. When dogs become cats? And when humans start producing new types of organs? Then you can have your say.
Until then? You theory is based upon observation of limited mutation. Cows do not become horses, and pigs do not become sheep. If evolution were true? That sort of mutation would have had to taken place in the past, in spades! One creature would be doomed to become its own predator!
Horses have lungs. Pigs have lungs. Man has lungs.
Horses have a liver. Pigs have a liver. Man has a liver.
Horses have eyes. Pigs have eyes. Man has eyes.
God did not design this? Or, it all just happened? Somehow?
Ok. Demonstrate that it makes testable predictions of what we find in nature and that the tests of your hypotheses provide results that agree with and explain observed evidence in nature.
Explain why we have millions of species on record, but not one record of a new type of creature having evolved to become drastically different from what it began with? The fact that horses have spleens, pigs do, too. And, so do men? That there must have been a common ancestor down the line that they all evolved from. Eyes, ears, nose, hearts, bowels, lungs, intestines, stomachs, teeth, mouths, etc. All in common. Yet, all different in exact design. Its too complex for them to have spontaneously formed originally, and kept pace in how they evolved.
I should hope so. One can hardly explain what can be observed without making observations.
Remember the story of the three blind men and the elephant? Observation is too limited at times to see the over all picture. The answer needs to come from an informed outside source. God is that source.
This is what defines the emergence of modern science from medieval speculations which accepted whatever ancient authorities said without ever checking them against actual observations.
The Word of God is also to be observed. Midieval authorities forbid that observation, as well. They wanted the power to make things up, and not to be questioned.
You mean it is a conclusion based upon tested hypotheses. Creationists always seem to forget that aspect of the scientific method.
How can evolution be tested? It may reveal a dog changing his hair color when moving to a new environment. So? You can not demonstrate how we got dogs, cows, and pigs. All have similar over all design of function. But, each was unique in how they were formed.
True. That is why the hypothesis of common descent had to be tested. It has been tested and is supported by the results of the testing.
A bird experiencing a beak change is hardly a way to explain how we now have millions of species and types.
The hypothesis of common descent makes testable predictions of what we find in nature, and to date, none of those predictions have been falsified while many have been confirmed.
God made creatures able to mutate to an extent. Why? It reveals his omniscience and forknowledge. He knew our every need before we were born.
Take a group of chameleons who are always found on green trees? One year there is a great fire and all the trees are now brown. The chameleon turns brown for the first time.
Evolution?
So it is when you observe so called mutation for survival. It (what you call mutation) was always there to change. Only the opportunity for the change had not yet taken place. God created that creature with that ability in mind. For he knows the future needs of that creature he designed.
Isaiah 65:24 niv
Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear.
God knew every need you would ever have in Eternity past. He reveals this aspect of his nature in creation with what you call by the term, 'evolution.'
God created dogs, as dogs. Cats, as cats.... man, as man. What minor modifications by means of mutation took place over time, is not evidence of this creation having its ancestors found in the Cretaceous period. That was a creation all its own, in its own right.
http://www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/1.html
Grace and peace, GeneZ
A red herring. It doesn't matter whether gap theology is ancient or modern. It is still wrong.
No it is not. No more than a literal 6-day creation is. It is one possible interpretation of scriptural content.
I agree that if we did not have God's creation itself to bear witness, there would be no way to judge the relative validity of young-earth, old-earth (with or without a gap), or non-literal interpretations. Nothing in scripture tells us whether to interpret Genesis 1 as a history or as a literary framework. Nor do the ancient commentators on scripture.
But creation itself provides us with the observations which show that no attempt to interpret Genesis 1 literally--not Day/Age, not Gap theology and certainly not YEC, accords with the facts of God's work.[/quote]
God created coffee for a good reason. 
And? 
