GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[Jazer]

who makes the PhD's look like 5th graders

Most of the books on Amazon are written at a 5th grade level. If you want a book on the best sellers list it does not matter if you have a Phd what matters is if people can read your book. The more people that can read it, the more books your going to sell.

Hawking's A Brief History of Time, was a tough read for most people who tackled it. Hawking received many requests for a version that would make his discussion of deep questions about the universe more accessible.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you think that's important perhaps you could consider why God created the ostrich with feathers.

God creating feathers like the peacock for beauty and evolution are two different things. Beauty doesn't evolve just because it's pretty, it needs a tangible benefit to the herd. But God can create a flower with beauty just like that. here is a link nullifying all of those so called dinosaurs that have feathers. and nullifying the concept that dinosaurs evolved into birds....

strong evidence from the forelimb and lung structures that dinosaurs could not have been the ancestors of birds:

Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds? - Answers in Genesis

Rahonavis just a bird descendant (other reversals in dinosaur/bird evolution)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/bird.asp

evolutionists rejecting bird evolution

Birds Did Not Evolve from Dinosaurs, Say Evolutionists - Answers in Genesis

wellnhoferia just a bird descendant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellnhoferia


latest discovery in china just a bird

News to Note, July 30, 2011 - Answers in Genesis

the first non avian fossil w feathers dis-proven

News to Note, May 26, 2007 - Answers in Genesis

Microraptor gui just a bird

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/19/news-to-note-09192009

pedopenna asymmetrical wings were used in aviation (just a bird)

http://www.dinosaurfact.net/Pterosaurs/Pedopenna.php

more dinosaurs are actually birds

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/231.html

 

[Nostromo]

strong evidence from the forelimb and lung structures that dinosaurs could not have been the ancestors of birds:

You seem to be suggesting that dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds because they weren't already birds.

It may or may not be the case that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but evolve they did.

 

[createdtoworship]

You seem to be suggesting that dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds because they weren't already birds.

It may or may not be the case that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but evolve they did.

everything evolves on a micro level, but not macroevolution (that doesn't exist)

 

[Split Rock]

There is no "new" color. You have a recessive gene that was not being expressed because of bottleneck genetics. Most all species have 40 or more different colors. To say they each developed a mutation independant of each other is a contradiction to natural selection by common decent. You do not have common decent at all. The Syrian Hamsters all of a sudden develop the same colors that all the other hamsters already had? Two different hamsters WITHOUT common decent develops the same mutation?

In an inbred line, recessives are always expressed! You do not understand what a genetic bottleneck is, even though you post about it, do you? Why do you think all these recessive traits were being expressed among the nobility of Europe, like hemophila? Because inbredding leads to the expression of recessive traits! If you are corrrect that the new color was a recessive, then that would have been the only color expressed in a completetly inbred line in the first place! Do you get it now?

I am no expert, I just know BS when I smell it and I do not buy it. You can believe whatever you want to believe, just don't expect me to believe it.

I'm going to start a new thread called, "I'm not an expert, but....." You are my inspiration.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't think those are all feathers. secondly, some are not really feathers like the symmetrical ones that are not used for flying. So why would symmetrical feathers evolve? If they can't fly that would be the question for you.

Feathers originally evolved for insulation and sexual display. This is the same purpose for symmetric feathers today on flightless birds (they are still called feathers, btw). They were only adapted for flight later. Theropods were thus predisposed for flight by a number of factors: feathers, hollow bones, warm-blooded metabolism. These all evolved for other purposes, of course.

 

[TheReasoner]

everything evolves on a micro level, but not macroevolution (that doesn't exist)

"All travelling occurs on a step basis. There is no such thing as reaching a far off destination"
Makes as much sense.

Grady, you make a small change, and then another small change and follow up with these small changes over millions of years, and you expect there to be no great changes?
Come on. You don't really believe in your own argument, do you? Of course there is such a thing as speciation. Not only has it been observed (1), but it follows as a natural consequence of microevolution the way walking a given distance follows the ability to take repeated sets of steps. You are basically doing the equivalent of arguing that you can have a cluster of trees or even a copse with as high a number of trees as you wish, but you can never reach the stage where the copse becomes a forest. This argument is nonsensical, Grady. And I think you can see that it is upon revisiting your argument.

 

[Split Rock]

Most of the books on Amazon are written at a 5th grade level. If you want a book on the best sellers list it does not matter if you have a Phd what matters is if people can read your book. The more people that can read it, the more books your going to sell.

Hawking's A Brief History of Time, was a tough read for most people who tackled it. Hawking received many requests for a version that would make his discussion of deep questions about the universe more accessible.

You're tendancy to post irrelevant tangents reminds me of JohnR7. He is also a Gap Creationist. Did you used to post under that name here, by any chance?

 

[Jazer]

If you're going by a nearly-400-year-old book, then you're going to run into problems.

You would have to see the book. For the most part the book deals with the last 6,000 years. But no one wants to accept that.

Wait, do you believe the 'days' are periods of 1000 years, or are actual 24-hour periods that are 1000 years apart?

Yes I believe the days are 1000 years. That work out very well with what we know from Science about how the ice age ended and the neolithic age began.

 

[Nostromo]

That work out very well with what we know from Science about how the ice age ended and the neolithic age began.

Can you tell me why you're happy to accept what scientists have discovered about this, but reject anything they've discovered which contradicts your existing beliefs?

 

[Jazer]

Can you tell me why you're happy to accept what scientists have discovered about this, but reject anything they've discovered which contradicts your existing beliefs?

You want to know WHY I reject Evolution? Because it is anti God. Well, let me put it this way. There is a lot of truth and error mixed together. So I reject the error, even though there is truth there.

It's simple. When Science contradicts the Bible then Science is wrong, it is as simple as that. When Science Supports what the Bible says, then Science finally got it right. Was it not science that give us modern warfare? Do you think it is good that man uses science to kill all those people. Even children and babies with their arms and legs blown off? So clearly Science can be just as evil as they are good. At times they can mix truth and error, good and evil together into one.

Right now Science can not contradict or falisify anything in the Bible. There is lot and lots and lots in the Bible that Science can prove to be true. So that is the way it is right now.

 

[Nostromo]

You want to know WHY I reject Evolution? Because it is anti God. Well, let me put it this way. There is a lot of truth and error mixed together. So I reject the error, even though there is truth there.

No I don't want to know why you reject evolution, I want to know why you only accept the conclusions of scientists when it suits you.

It's simple. When Science contradicts the Bible then Science is wrong, it is as simple as that. When Science Supports what the Bible says, then Science finally got it right.

Why is it that this mountain of evidence is indicative of a right answer, but that mountain over there means absolutely nothing?

Was it not science that give us modern warfare?

mmm, no I don't think it was. Men have been killing each other since the beginning of time, it doesn't really matter what they are using, the desire is naturally within them. Nukes, iron chariots or pointy sticks make no difference.

Do you think it is good that man uses science to kill all those people. Even children and babies with their arms and legs blown off? So clearly Science can be just as evil as they are good.

You just said it yourself, "man uses science to kill". Science itself isn't evil any more than the knife in the hand of a mugger is evil, it is the man wielding it that is evil.

Right now Science can not contradict or falisify anything in the Bible. There is lot and lots and lots in the Bible that Science can prove to be true. So that is the way it is right now.

I'm sure you believe that, but you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Jazer]

Men have been killing each other since the beginning of time, it doesn't really matter what they are using, the desire is naturally within them. Nukes, iron chariots or pointy sticks make no difference.

Oh how convienent. Men are going to be men, so it does not matter that Science can up the anti and give them the ability to wipe out the whole world with the push of a button. How about if we have this conversation in about 20 years after the bombs have been droped to see how you feel about it then.

 

[Jazer]

I'm sure you believe that, but you couldn't be more wrong.

Now your telling me that you could not be more wrong? Really, I had no idea. I never would have known if you had not told me that about yourself.

This verse might imply that Rosh Hashana commemorates the creation of the universe. But it doesn't. Rosh Hashana commemorate the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. We start counting our 5700-plus years from the creation of the soul of Adam.
We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.

 

[createdtoworship]

"All travelling occurs on a step basis. There is no such thing as reaching a far off destination"
Makes as much sense.

Grady, you make a small change, and then another small change and follow up with these small changes over millions of years, and you expect there to be no great changes?
Come on. You don't really believe in your own argument, do you? Of course there is such a thing as speciation. Not only has it been observed (1), but it follows as a natural consequence of microevolution the way walking a given distance follows the ability to take repeated sets of steps. You are basically doing the equivalent of arguing that you can have a cluster of trees or even a copse with as high a number of trees as you wish, but you can never reach the stage where the copse becomes a forest. This argument is nonsensical, Grady. And I think you can see that it is upon revisiting your argument.

so you have no literal evolution of genera to show? If species can evolve into another species then one genus should evolve into another genus no problem so show me.

 

[createdtoworship]

Feathers originally evolved for insulation and sexual display. This is the same purpose for symmetric feathers today on flightless birds (they are still called feathers, btw). They were only adapted for flight later. Theropods were thus predisposed for flight by a number of factors: feathers, hollow bones, warm-blooded metabolism. These all evolved for other purposes, of course.

there is good reason to suggest dinasaurs were not warm blooded like birds are .....
Cold or Warm blooded? :: Truedinos

 

[Jazer]

x

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You would have to see the book. For the most part the book deals with the last 6,000 years. But no one wants to accept that.

Indeed, because he explicitly states

Yes I believe the days are 1000 years. That work out very well with what we know from Science about how the ice age ended and the neolithic age began.

Except that fruit-bearing trees are at least 140 million years old. According to the Bible, fruit-bearing trees were created on Day Three - which corresponds to 10,982 years ago, or thereabouts.

 

[Jazer]

Except that fruit-bearing trees are at least 140 million years old. According to the Bible, fruit-bearing trees were created on Day Three - which corresponds to 10,982 years ago, or thereabouts.

I already explained that God repopulates the earth with a remenant of what was here before. That could be as few as 10% but there are scriptures where God brings one third through the fire and two thirds are cut off or destroyed.

Did you read the article by Schroeder at: Age of the Universe He can explain it all a lot better then I can.

 

[Nostromo]

Oh how convienent. Men are going to be men, so it does not matter that Science can up the anti and give them the ability to wipe out the whole world with the push of a button. How about if we have this conversation in about 20 years after the bombs have been droped to see how you feel about it then.

Science is just a way of finding things out in an organised fashion, it's not some kind of black magic in which Satanists rub together demonic seeing stones to ask the Dark Lord of the Underworld how to make a firing pin for a handgun. People will always find things out about the world even if it's only by accident. The first person to apply something like the Scientific Method did so in about 1000AD, long after the invention of the crossbow, trebuchet, plate armour, gunpowder and more.