GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[roach]

So what do you think it means to repopulate the earth?

Again, where are you getting these ideas about evolution? Where does repopulating the earth appear in any scientific text about evolution? I get that you are trying to connect religion and evolution, you just don't supply any background on how or why you see logical connections between the two. If you do this, I guarantee a healthy, productive discourse. Sticking to one line assertions that overstep the bounds of reasoned thinking cannot possibly lead to achieving the goal of being understood. I implore you to consider this as you post prolifically on scientific topics.

 

[Jazer]

Again, where are you getting these ideas about evolution? Where does repopulating the earth appear in any scientific text about evolution?

I go over this so many time, and then a new person comes along and wants me to explain it to them all over again. Can't you just look up some of my old posts. If I have something new to add then I will add it. If it was religion I would be glad to try to explain it. But this is science and so you need to study your science book about the end of the ice age and the beginning of the neolithic age.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So what about the people that do not believe in religion but believe in having a relationship with God.

You mean people like Cain.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You might want to go back and read that again, professor; hang the Arab phone up first, though.

Genesis 4:4-5 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

We've been over this exact same matter once before, AV -- I don't have the exact post (although I'm sure you do), but I recall that you had the chance to correct me, but you backed off; think you've got the courage to try this time?

I think not. Prove me wrong or take your seat in the peanut gallery.

 

[Jazer]

You mean people like Cain.

God told Cain: "
4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Sin is something we all have to deal with. If we want to be accepted with God then we have to rule over sin and not allow sin to control us. If we want to be accepted by God then we have to live Holy, Pure, Clean, Dedicated, Sanctified lives before Him. Otherwise if we reject Him, then He will reject us. If we violate God's law then we have to deal the consequences of that. Science says the natural laws are what made the universe and that God will not violate His own laws. As science will testify, you can not have a universe without the natural laws.

“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18).
​

 

[Nathan Poe]

God told Cain: "
4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Sin is something we all have to deal with. If we want to be accepted with God then we have to rule over sin and not allow sin to control us. If we want to be accepted by God then we have to live Holy, Pure, Clean, Dedicated, Sanctified lives before Him.

A pity then that Cain did not do well enough in God's eyes -- little wonder it drove him to homicide.

People do strange things in order to gain the approval of the Almighty -- especially those who feel they've lost it somehow and want to get it back.

 

[Jazer]

A pity then that Cain did not do well enough in God's eyes -- little wonder it drove him to homicide.

People do strange things in order to gain the approval of the Almighty -- especially those who feel they've lost it somehow and want to get it back.

Do you think the failure is with the individual or the leaders and teachers in religious institutions? To me it seems like God makes it all so easy yet somehow people want to make it complicted. Time and again I hear it said that religion is the problem and religion has failed people.

 

[Nostromo]

I go over this so many time, and then a new person comes along and wants me to explain it to them all over again. Can't you just look up some of my old posts. If I have something new to add then I will add it. If it was religion I would be glad to try to explain it. But this is science and so you need to study your science book about the end of the ice age and the beginning of the neolithic age.

That's very funny, I like it. Perhaps every time you post we should just tell you to go sit in the library until you stop saying things which have been shown to be false countless times.

Since you've been looking at things related to the last Ice Age, did you see anything that said how far South the ice sheets spread? Did they reach the Fertile Crescent?

 

[TheReasoner]

Do you think the failure is with the individual or the leaders and teachers in religious institutions? To me it seems like God makes it all so easy yet somehow people want to make it complicted. Time and again I hear it said that religion is the problem and religion has failed people.

Yep. Is it strange though? You have religious muslim extremists wanting to do their thing, at everyone elses' peril. You have right wing extremist christians - such as ABB or the KKK wanting their violent and pure evil crap pushed through. You have groups like the prosperity people, proclaiming in essence that poverty, disease, and hardships of all kinds is just something people suffer because they don't believe enough. You have creationists who lobby to undermine the educational system and put scientific progress back well over a century in many cases. More in some. Plus you have a LARGE number of other hypocrites. Social darwinists who loudly proclaim to be God's servants, only to continue spouting crap about their own supremacy or the rights of the strong and powerful over the weak.
Religion has very little to commend it if you look at those groups. Many religions preach to be religions of peace. Christianity for example. But then you have christian terrorist organizations. Weapons manufacturers putting bible verses on their military firearms.


The list is LONG. There are many reasons for despising religion. Not so many for not doing so. We as Christians are continually failing our task. There is no doubt about that. What really ticks me off is that the loudest hypocrites are also the ones people look at as the most christian. Not the people who dedicate their lives to serve those in need. There are many of those too. And therein lies the true nature of Christianity IMHO. Not in the creationists or cristian right. In the people who stand up with and for the poor, weak and downtrodden.

 

[roach]

I go over this so many time, and then a new person comes along and wants me to explain it to them all over again. Can't you just look up some of my old posts. If I have something new to add then I will add it. If it was religion I would be glad to try to explain it. But this is science and so you need to study your science book about the end of the ice age and the beginning of the neolithic age.

I've actually attempted to do understand your previous posts, but they really don't add clarity to this argument. If you really aren't connecting religion to science here in any way, why invoke the word god at all when speaking of evolution (that is what I addressed in the first place)? I'm starting to get your logic, it comes from the very same elementary school text book explaining the ice ages, right?

 

[Jazer]

Again, where are you getting these ideas about evolution? Where does repopulating the earth appear in any scientific text about evolution?

I have already answered this quetion three times. We are talking about the last 12,000 years. Look at what Science has to say then look at what the Bible says. Both Science and the Bible agree. They say the exact same thing. Although they have their own theorys and their own perspective. For example you do not see the word "neolithic" or "neolithic revolution" in the Bible. You do not see the terms "food producer" and "food gather" in the Bible. I have never seen the world "archeology" "DNA" or "Population Genetics" in the Bible. Because the Bible was written 3500 years ago and those terms were not in use at the time.

One example would be that Science uses the term "extinction". The Bible says without form and void. So for a untrained person they may not know what mass extinction is and they may not know what it means to be without form and void. It takes a educated person to talk about what these terms mean and how they relate to each other. People like Gerald Schroeder is well educated in Science and Religion. So he is qualified to talk about both.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you think the failure is with the individual or the leaders and teachers in religious institutions?

Don't you think there's enough failure to go around? Even the most "independent" of thinkers is influenced by the religious institutions they grew up with -- so does it make a difference whether they're deliberately parroting the institution's mistake or unknowing coming to the same erroneous conclusion?

To me it seems like God makes it all so easy yet somehow people want to make it complicted.

While others, in their quest to unravel it, end up with a distorted oversimplification.

What I think is important for all of us to remember is that "God" represents something completely and utterly outside of human comprehension. No words -- not even the ones in the Bible -- can encapsulate "God" and do it any sense of justice.

The Bible writers knew this, and, to the best of their all too human abilities, expressed their "God" concept in the language of mythology -- meaning symbolism and metaphor.

Now, it may help to think of symbols and metaphor as a kind of code -- not necessarily a "secret" code, but certainly one that was well known to the original intended audience, but one that has long since been lost.

The Church lost that code centuries, maybe millennia ago, and tried to compensate by literalizing and concretizing the whole thing, and dealing very harshly with those who disagreed. Sure, they came up with a system, but is it the original one -- let along the right one?

Of course, the Church nowadays doesn't burn dissenters anymore -- it just dismisses them as not "spiritually discerned" or some such. translation: you don't agree with us, so you're not worth listening to.

Individuals often make the same claim -- ironically enough, often towards the Institutions they claim to have separated from. Individuals who like to see themsleves as "independent" fundamentalists may disagree with the institution on a specific doctrine or two, but they still follow the same erroneous path because they don't have the code any more than the institution does.

So really, when the individuals and the teachers are making the same mistake, does it matter whose fault it is?

Time and again I hear it said that religion is the problem and religion has failed people.

And I won't disagree with that -- but it spreads: the people who were failed become failures themselves. Religion points down one path; they pick another without considering that it's in a different wrong direction.

 

[roach]

I have already answered this quetion three times. We are talking about the last 12,000 years. Look at what Science has to say then look at what the Bible says. Both Science and the Bible agree. They say the exact same thing. Although they have their own theorys and their own perspective. For example you do not see the word "neolithic" or "neolithic revolution" in the Bible. You do not see the terms "food producer" and "food gather" in the Bible. I have never seen the world "archeology" "DNA" or "Population Genetics" in the Bible. Because the Bible was written 3500 years ago and those terms were not in use at the time.

One example would be that Science uses the term "extinction". The Bible says without form and void. So for a untrained person they may not know what mass extinction is and they may not know what it means to be without form and void. It takes a educated person to talk about what these terms mean and how they relate to each other. People like Gerald Schroeder is well educated in Science and Religion. So he is qualified to talk about both.

I see, you're trying to put forth schroeder's arguments. Schroeder is no doubt intelligent and has put a lot of energy into this bible/ science issue. I am aware of schroeder's books but they do not, to my knowledge, put forth any significant evidence that the bible is a correct account of history. He tries to use the argument that the perception of time varies according to the perspective of the observer and even calculates the variance in space-time to account for the historical incongruities of the bible. It's really not as revealing as it would first seem (though you obviously don't question it). Rudolf Steiner et. al. proposed a similar account of written history (without doing all the physics) in the late 1800s or early 1900s. Why, I wonder, have you swallowed Schroeder's hypotheses whole? Is it simply because he's a MIT physicist and must therefore be correct about everything including the bible? Like I said, try being open-minded, there are very good reasons to doubt his methods regarding biblical historicity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have already answered this quetion three times. We are talking about the last 12,000 years. Look at what Science has to say then look at what the Bible says. Both Science and the Bible agree. They say the exact same thing. Although they have their own theorys and their own perspective. For example you do not see the word "neolithic" or "neolithic revolution" in the Bible. You do not see the terms "food producer" and "food gather" in the Bible. I have never seen the world "archeology" "DNA" or "Population Genetics" in the Bible. Because the Bible was written 3500 years ago and those terms were not in use at the time.

One example would be that Science uses the term "extinction". The Bible says without form and void. So for a untrained person they may not know what mass extinction is and they may not know what it means to be without form and void. It takes a educated person to talk about what these terms mean and how they relate to each other. People like Gerald Schroeder is well educated in Science and Religion. So he is qualified to talk about both.

Equivocation is a fallacy, no matter who makes it. And so are arguments from authority, for that matter.

 

[roach]

Equivocation is a fallacy, no matter who makes it. And so are arguments from authority, for that matter.

Indeed, I guess some people need an "educated person" to fit the bible to the data. I'm still optimistic, though, when I see religious people needing to vet their beliefs with science. Maybe I'm wrong, but when faith loses the ability to convince religious adherents to believe without question and they must turn to science for validation in their beliefs, I take this as progress in reason and rationality. Then again... !?

 

[createdtoworship]

theistic evolution has no evidence scientifically or biblically. It is a fabrication of logic to suit the needs of mans pride and not of God.

 

[TheReasoner]

theistic evolution has no evidence scientifically or biblically. It is a fabrication of logic to suit the needs of mans pride and not of God.

So you are saying God doesn't exist then? Evolution is going on all the time. We (bio engineers) even use it to make stuff. So if evolution and God cannot possibly coexist it follows that since we KNOW evolution to be real God must be false.

No, grady. I do believe God exists. And I am not about to ignore what His creation says in favor of an interpretation held by a small minority of Christians across the pond (in the US). Even if that minority is large in the US (about 40%) it constitutes a small minority of the world's Christian population. The way they read the bible there may not be room for evolution. But that is their problem, not Christianity's problem. Most of Christianity embraces evolution, which is a good thing. It's real, after all. And if reality conflicts with a biblical interpretation the interpretation is most likely wrong.

 

[mzungu]

Both YEC & OEC are established on Rock Solid Science.

You may know the meaning of the words "Rock & Solid" but I am afraid you have absolutely NO IDEA about Science and scientific methods.

What you say is tantamount to me saying something like this: "Both Hinduism and Islam are established on rock solid Christianity!"

Keep science out of it until you learn what Science is.

 

[mzungu]

theistic evolution has no evidence scientifically or biblically. It is a fabrication of logic to suit the needs of mans pride and not of God.

Most Americans believe that because they consider Christianity a political party and not a faith!

 

[Jazer]

I am afraid you have absolutely NO IDEA about Science and scientific methods.

I know a lot more about Science then you know about the Bible and how to study the Bible.