GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[mzungu]

No one is saying it does. But when you have a non moral framework you have social darwinists that are attracted and thus hang their negative values on it. You can't do that with Christianity.

Hogwash! According to you then Mathematics attracts people who hang negative values to it because it lacks moral values

Only in America

 

[Jazer]

You know what they say about bearing false witness don't you!

Why are you starting to feel convicted?

 

[Freodin]

whenever there is a non moral framework, it's relatively easy to hang your morals on it. Whether good or bad, in this case extremely bad (social darwinism). You can't do that with Christianity.

So? I'd say it is quite the opposite.

Whereever there is a moral framework, it is possible to fit your own actions into it.

Love your enemies? Well, I am only defending myself against an impeding attack or try to keep my family from harm. I am loving my enemies... but that does not keep my from killing them should they tread on my turf, does it?

Killing is bad? Hey, burning heretics is doing them a favour! I am keeping them from makeing more mortal sins and offer them repentence and salvation!

And of course I love all my enemies... but these people are the enemies of GOD HIMSELF! They deserve to die! And look! God himself commanded his people to kill every single person of the Thingykites and the Whatthamacallums!

Rightly or wrongly... Christians have used their absolute morals do defend all of their acts during the times.


But if you have a system that does not provide any moral guideline... you are definitly and provably wrong when you use it to provide moral guidelines.

 

[mzungu]

Why are you starting to feel convicted?

I fear not leprechauns, demons, nor fairies, therefore I cannot feel convicted!

 

[createdtoworship]

Hogwash! According to you then Mathematics attracts people who hang negative values to it because it lacks moral values

Only in America

If mathematics made false claims that it is proven science that we evolved from the sludge and believed in survival of the fittest then men could twist these sayings into whatever political agenda they wanted because it's all fictitious. When you bring science fiction into a biology class you get some weird results. You simply cannot do that with math or compare the two. One biology, the other, math.

 

[createdtoworship]

But if you have a system that does not provide any moral guideline... you are definitly and provably wrong when you use it to provide moral guidelines.

In one sense evolution has not moral guidelines because it claims to be science but in another sense, it simply lacks morals. Meaning it is devoid. This makes it easy for someone to hang their own twist of negativity on it because you can't prove them wrong without a moral framework. So your wrong there, you need morals to prove them wrong. Because it's not wrong to say allow abortion if it's survival of the fittest.

 

[TheReasoner]

In one sense evolution has not moral guidelines because it claims to be science but in another sense, it simply lacks morals. Meaning it is devoid. This makes it easy for someone to hang their own twist of negativity on it because you can't prove them wrong without a moral framework. So your wrong there, you need morals to prove them wrong. Because it's not wrong to say allow abortion if it's survival of the fittest.

Yeah, that would be wrong Grady. Dead wrong. You cannot say that with a basis in evolution.

And your claims on negativity... Nah. Not right either. Freodin covered that one.

Why do you have a problem with evolution Grady? Really? It's as tried and true as any scientific theory. Can truth be harmful to God or His kingdom? Only if twisted, or given the appearance of being in conflict with it. And creationists are working hard to make sure such a perception is maintained and strengthened. Nothing good can come of that.
Thankfully most christians are not creationists.


And by the way... Evolution is science Grady. Tried, tested and even applied.

 

[mzungu]

In one sense evolution has not moral guidelines because it claims to be science but in another sense, it simply lacks morals. Meaning it is devoid. This makes it easy for someone to hang their own twist of negativity on it because you can't prove them wrong without a moral framework. So your wrong there, you need morals to prove them wrong. Because it's not wrong to say allow abortion if it's survival of the fittest.

Evolution is a PROCESS! It is a process that belongs to science and not the Bible!

 

[createdtoworship]

I fear not leprechauns, demons, nor fairies, therefore I cannot feel convicted!

if you have no conviction you don't have the holy spirit because the holy spirit brings conviction

John 16:8 (NEB) "When he [the Holy Spirit] comes, he will convict the world, and show where right and wrong and judgment lie. He will convict them of wrong..."

 

[mzungu]

if you have no conviction you don't have the holy spirit because the holy spirit brings conviction

John 16:8 (NEB) "When he [the Holy Spirit] comes, he will convict the world, and show where right and wrong and judgment lie. He will convict them of wrong..."

By spirit do you mean the kind that is found in bottles in pharmacies, bars etc

 

[TheReasoner]

By spirit do you mean the kind that is found in bottles in pharmacies, bars etc

I think he means this:

and not:

 

[mzungu]

I think he means this:

and not:

He means a Glowing Flying pigeon WOW! how do you get one of those inside you

 

[Jpark]

I think God accelerated (fast forwarded) the 13 billions years to 6 days.

The dinosaurs did die out, but it's not as we perceive it. They perished in an instance yet to them their life was years.

To God, it was like an instance. Psalm 90:3-4 You turn man back into dust
And say, “Return, O children of men.”
4 For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,

Why do I say this? There's indication that the sun will eventually become a red giant (billions of years from now) and it just so happens that when Scripture is interpreted correctly (in context), this fate may be disclosed in the Scriptures. If it is indeed true, it's marvelously striking.

Therefore what has taken ages to create, God will erase in seconds. And vice versa: what has taken ages to destroy, takes seconds to create.

Each second, more than four million metric tons of matter are converted into energy within the Sun's core, producing neutrinos and solar radiation. At this rate, the Sun has so far converted around 100 Earth-masses of matter into energy. The Sun will spend a total of approximately 10 billion years as a main sequence star.

Order from chaos, order in chaos. That's what this says and that's what the Bible says.

The beginning is compared with the end:

2 Peter 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

2 Peter 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Heb. 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds [Lit 'ages'] were prepared by the word of God...

Six days to create, six days to destroy. Daniel 2:21 “It is He who changes the times and the epochs...

 

[TheReasoner]

I think God accelerated (fast forwarded) the 13 billions years to 6 days.

Why? We can't see any indications of it, and time for God is not like time for us. Why would He need to speed something up as seen from our perspective when we are told time for Him is not at all like time for us. So speeding time up like that would not give much meaning to be honest. Not since time doesn't matter to God AND nothing appears to support the notion.

Time is not as easy as all that. Study a wee bit of relativity and you'll see just how far from the popular perception time actually is - even in our universe/reality. And to quote the bible: 2 Peter 3:8–9 reads:

‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

(My emphasis). This is made clear several places in the bible. So why insist on God altering time as seen from our perspective when nothing appears to support that notion?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think God accelerated (fast forwarded) the 13 billions years to 6 days.

The dinosaurs did die out, but it's not as we perceive it. They perished in an instance yet to them their life was years.

To God, it was like an instance. Psalm 90:3-4 You turn man back into dust
And say, “Return, O children of men.”
4 For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,

That's something of a subjective interpretation of both science and the Bible, isn't it? Is there anything in science that suggests there was any acceleration of time? Are you referring to relativistic time dilation? Even then, what exactly do you mean by God "accelerated the 13 billion years to 6 days"?

Why do I say this? There's indication that the sun will eventually become a red giant (billions of years from now) and it just so happens that when Scripture is interpreted correctly (in context), this fate may be disclosed in the Scriptures. If it is indeed true, it's marvelously striking.

That's a pretty loose interpretation. As the article you cite mentioned:

"They created the most detailed model to date of the Sun's transition to a red giant, based on observations of six nearby red giant stars. Sure enough, they found that Earth's orbit will widen at first. But Earth will also induce a "tidal bulge" on the Sun's surface, with its own gravitational pull. The bulge will lag just behind the Earth in its orbit, slowing it down enough to drag it to a fiery demise."

The Earth's orbit may indeed be widened, but it will not widen enough.

Therefore what has taken ages to create, God will erase in seconds. And vice versa: what has taken ages to destroy, takes seconds to create.

If God is going to intervene and end the Earth in seconds, then why look to science? Surely science will reveal no portent about God's future action - the Sun's natural life will end the Earth over millions of years, not seconds.

Order from chaos, order in chaos. That's what this says and that's what the Bible says.

That's another loose interpretation of both science and the Bible. According to science, the universe has only ever got more chaotic. Local decreases in entropy are offset by a universal increase.

 

[mzungu]

I think God accelerated (fast forwarded) the 13 billions years to 6 days.

What you think has little relevance especially when you have absolutely no scientific basis to base you ideas on.

This world will become a very dangerous place to live in if we are to allow superstition to rule our lives!

God help us all if religious fundamentalism overrules science!

 

[createdtoworship]

Yeah, that would be wrong Grady. Dead wrong. You cannot say that with a basis in evolution.

And your claims on negativity... Nah. Not right either. Freodin covered that one.

Why do you have a problem with evolution Grady? Really? It's as tried and true as any scientific theory. Can truth be harmful to God or His kingdom? Only if twisted, or given the appearance of being in conflict with it. And creationists are working hard to make sure such a perception is maintained and strengthened. Nothing good can come of that.
Thankfully most christians are not creationists.


And by the way... Evolution is science Grady. Tried, tested and even applied.

evolution is natural selection from the goo to you by way of the zoo

It doesn't work because there is no evidence of macro evolution.

 

[TheReasoner]

evolution is natural selection from the goo to you by way of the zoo

It doesn't work because there is no evidence of macro evolution.

No forest, only trees, hm?

Sure there is evidence of it. You haven't looked in the right places.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

evolution is natural selection from the goo to you by way of the zoo

It doesn't work because there is no evidence of macro evolution.

Except for all those darn fossils of intermediary forms, like bird-like reptiles (or is it reptile-like birds?), like primordial cetaceans, like Tiktaalik, like Lucy...

Oh, and then there's genetics, with things like ERVs and introns, and a nested hierarchy for every single protein in every single living species that map out the same nested hierarchy. If evolution didn't happen, care to explain how every protein bears the same, predicted pattern of relative deviation, no matter where we look?

We can look at proteins in humans and compare them to chimps. There's a small amount of deviation. In cats, there's more. In birds, there's more still. Novel proteins that evolution says occurred in (say) the common ancestor of mammals exist - there's no protein that only exists in the hummingbird and all mice, for instance. No, proteins exist in the taxonomic classifications that evolution tells us must exist, and they never 'cross boundaries'. Just as hair is a trait on all mammals and only on mammals, so too do proteins follow exactly the same system of exclusivity.

Care to explain why this is? Is it just a happy coincidence that every protein and feature in every body matches common descent?

 

[Jazer]

Except for all those darn fossils of intermediary forms, like bird-like reptiles (or is it reptile-like birds?), like primordial cetaceans, like Tiktaalik, like Lucy...

You wish. Evos are so desperate for intermediate fossils that they pretend they exist. Even though they can not produce any.

The real Lucy is on the left, the pretend Lucy is on the right.