Scientific Evidence for Creationism-Atempt 1000?

[JohnR7]

We want scientific evidence for your views on Creationism.

What do you mean by creationism? I am GAP so do you want scientific evidence for GAP? That is what I am doing. According to the GAP theory food producers DID NOT evolve from Food Gathers. It just so happens that Bryan Sykes has scientific evidence that shows food producers did not evolve from food gathers. In fact for a while they lived side by side. The producers actually did not replace the gathers. Over time the gathers converted and became food producers.

 

[OdwinOddball]

What do you mean by creationism? I am GAP so do you want scientific evidence for GAP? That is what I am doing. According to the GAP theory food producers DID NOT evolve from Food Gathers. It just so happens that Bryan Sykes has scientific evidence that shows food producers did not evolve from food gathers. In fact for a while they lived side by side. The producers actually did not replace the gathers. Over time the gathers converted and became food producers.

Well then explaining what you believe might not be a bad way to start.
Note that that was part of the request made in the OP.

 

[JohnR7]

So talk about Creation. If that involves Adam and Eve in your views, then go for it. Present the sceintific evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve in the Bible and how they establish your creation myth as true.

I am really beginning to think that you know nothing about genetics. The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were a common ancestor for the Hebrew people and for the Muslim people. The Bible tells us where Adam and Eve lived. Also, we know WHEN they lived there.

Now DNA evidence shows us where the common ancestor for the Hebrew people lived and when. The evidence shows us they were food producers, just like the Bible said. Also the Bible tells us that Cain went to the land of Nod and began a city. Again science confirms that this was when people first began to settle into cities.

Genesis 2:10,14
A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. [14] The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Bryan Sykes tells us:
The first nucleus of domestication that we know about appeared about eleven thousand years ago in the Near East, in what is known as teh Fertile Crescent. This region takes in parts of moder-day Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran, and is drained by the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates river...true domestication had begun...Not only wild plants, but wild animals were domesticated...sheep & goats & animals. p135 The seven daughters of eve by bryan sykes.

There is lots, lots more, but do you want to go in a different direction again? If I did not tell you who wrote what, you may get confused over what moses wrote and what Sykes wrote. Do you want to play a game? I will give you a quote and then you tell me if Moses wrote it or if Sykes wrote it.

 

[OdwinOddball]

I am really beginning to think that you know nothing about genetics. The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were a common ancestor for the Hebrew people and for the Muslim people. The Bible tells us where Adam and Eve lived. Also, we know WHEN they lived there.

Now DNA evidence shows us where the common ancestor for the Hebrew people lived and when. The evidence shows us they were food producers, just like the Bible said. Also the Bible tells us that Cain when to the land of Nod and began a city. Again science confirms that this was when people first began to settle into cities.



There is lots, lots more, but do you want to go in a different direction again?

DNA evidence shows that the Hebrew people have a common ancestor that lived in the Mid East roughly 4000 years ago. However, science also tells us that this was far from being the first human being. So, how does this establish the tale of Biblical Creation as true?

In other words, what does any of this have to do with proving that your god created life the universe and everything?

 

[JohnR7]

Well then explaining what you believe might not be a bad way to start .

Oh, I see, you want me to explain the theory to you first and then show you the scientific evidence for the theory. Ok that makes sense, I will give that a try.

 

[JohnR7]

Please also notate which theory you subscribe to, Gap,YEC, OEC, etc.

The GAP theory has of course changed over the last 100 years. But a good place to begin is the 1917 edition of the Scofield Study Bible. This is the edition that really first promoted the theory.


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)[/FONT]
Chapter 1

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

without form and void
Jeremiah 4:23-27; Isaiah 24:1; 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels.
See Ezekiel 28:12-15; Isaiah 14:9-14 which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon.


​

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Let there be light
Neither here nor in verses 14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is, made to appear; made visible. The sun and moon were created "in the beginning." The "light" of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.


​

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

day
The word "day" is used in Scripture in three ways:
(1) that part of the solar day of twenty-four hours which is light Genesis 1:5,14; John 9:4; 11:9.
(2) such a day, set apart for some distinctive purpose, as, "day of atonement" (Leviticus 23:27); "day of judgment" Matthew 10:15.
(3) a period of time, long or short, during which certain revealed purposes of God are to be accomplished, as "day of the Lord."
evening
The use of "evening" and "morning" may be held to limit "day" to the solar day; but the frequent parabolic use of natural phenomena may warrant the conclusion that each creative "day" was a period of time marked off by a beginning and ending.



​

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

firmament Lit. expanse (i.e. of waters beneath, of vapour above).



​

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

firmament i.e. the expanse above, the "heaven" of the clouds. Genesis 7:11; 8:2.



​

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

bring forth grass
It is by no means necessary to suppose that the life-germ of seeds perished in the catastrophic judgment which overthrew the primitive order. With the restoration of dry land and light the earth would "bring forth" as described. It was "animal" life which perished, the traces of which remain as fossils. Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains. Typist's Note: THE GAP THEORY]]


​

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

greater light The "greater light" is a type of Christ, the "Sun of righteousness" Malachi 4:2. He will take this character at His second advent. Morally the world is now in the state between ; Genesis 1:3-16; Ephesians 6:12; Acts 26:18; 1 Peter 2:9. The sun is not seen, but there is light. Christ is that light John 1:4,5,9 but "shineth in darkness," comprehended only by faith. As "Son of righteousness" He will dispel all darkness. Dispensationally the Church is in place as the "lesser light," the moon, reflecting the light of the unseen sun. The stars Genesis 1:16 are individual believers who are "lights" ; Philippians 2:15,16; John 1:5.

​

 

[JohnR7]

DNA evidence shows that the Hebrew people have a common ancestor that lived in the Mid East roughly 4000 years ago. However, science also tells us that this was far from being the first human being. So, how does this establish the tale of Biblical Creation as true?

That is correct, Adam and Eve were the first Food Producers. We read about them in Chapter two of the Bible. The First food Gathers we read about in Chapter one. According to Sykes theory, food gathers make up 4/5 of europe and first appeared about 150,000 years ago. Food producers showed up in the last 10,000 years in the area the Bible calls Eden at the headwaters of the Tigris Euphrates rivers.

That is why they call it a GAP, there is a gap between food gathers and food producers. God created man the food gathers in chapter one. Then at the beginning of Chapter 2 we see the heaven and the earth were finished. Next we see These are the generations. This is a referance to Adam and Eve. This is a referance to the geneologys of the decendants of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were a common ancestor. When you study Adam and Eve you can learn a lot about HOW God does things and HOW God works in the Earth.

Genesis 2:1,4-7
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
[4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, [5] And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. [6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. [7] And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now, is this what you want to talk about, or are you still looking for something different?

 

[OdwinOddball]

That is correct, Adam and Eve were the first Food Producers. We read about them in Chapter two of the Bible. The First food Gathers we read about in Chapter one. According to Sykes theory, food gathers make up 4/5 of europe and first appeared about 150,000 years ago.

That is why they call it a GAP, there is a gap between food gathers and food producers. God created man the food gathers in chapter one. Then at the beginning of Chapter 2 we see the heaven and the earth were finished. Next we see These are the generations. This is a referance to Adam and Eve. This is a referance to the geneologys of the decendants of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were a common ancestor. When you study Adam and Eve you can learn a lot about HOW God does things and HOW God works in the Earth.

Genesis 2:1-7
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. [2] And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. [3] And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
[4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, [5] And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. [6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. [7] And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now, is this what you want to talk about, or are you still looking for something different?

Any scientific evidence that supports this would be exactly what this thread is about.

 

[JohnR7]

Any scientific evidence that supports this would be exactly what this thread is about.

You know in all fairness, there is a BUNCH of books coming out on this in NOV. This is ALL pretty new stuff and they are fighting with each other to be the first to get it to press. But it does not really matter, they all agree with each other. I just like Sykes better but the others are saying the same thing. This stuff is worked out in their Journals long before they release it to the general public.

 

[steen]

Do we need a tread #1001 about this, as we have only seen irrelevant, non-scientific claims not about creationism?

How about a new tread for creationist who have not posted in this tread?

 

[TheBear]

Do we need a tread #1001 about this, as we have only seen irrelevant, non-scientific claims not about creationism?

How about a new tread for creationist who have not posted in this tread?

I think you're right.

But the new thread needs to be a little more specific. This one allows for too much variance. I think the new thread should also outline the specifics of the format.

Example -

I believe "X".

Here are the data and evidence which supports "X". [....]

This is why I believe "X". [....]

 

[MewtwoX]

I'm confused now...

Does John accept that Evolution occured? I thought the purpose of this thread was to provide scientific evidence that people and other forms of life were created as is at some point.

All I see is attempts to prove parts of Genesis unrelated and trying to show that Farmers came separate from Hunters... Nothing about whether they were created or evolved from common ancestors.

I think we're talking about this now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

I'm confused now...

Does John accept that Evolution occured? I thought the purpose of this thread was to provide scientific evidence that people and other forms of life were created as is at some point.

All I see is attempts to prove parts of Genesis unrelated and trying to show that Farmers came separate from Hunters... Nothing about whether they were created or evolved from common ancestors.

I think we're talking about this now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

Ok, my understandiing is that John believes in multiple poofterisms, there were many early poofs that made up the geological record and then a fall and flood in some order that caused our current condition.

I attempted to start a thread for further clarification but noone has responded.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3102389-what-is-gap-theory.html#post24846483

 

[JohnR7]

I attempted to start a thread for further clarification but noone has responded.

Perhaps I am the only one here that believes the GAP theory. A lot of people have not even heard of it. It does not get very many votes in the polls here on this forum. There are some web sites out there where you can learn a little bit about it.

 

[JohnR7]

Does John accept that Evolution occured?

Not that I am going to admit. When it comes to evolution there can be no confusion over what I do or do not believe, because I do not believe any of it. But I do accept that I am not really qualified to argue against it. That would have to be done by people like Behe, Denton, Wells, Wise, Ross and other in creation science. It would be up to me to study their arguements and present thats best I can.

Of course if someone were to ask me why I do not believe in the theory, then I suppose I could share with them my reasons and why I come to those conclusions.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Something I should like to have clear first:

What would disqualify something as scientific evidence?

 

[MewtwoX]

Not that I am going to admit. When it comes to evolution there can be no confusion over what I do or do not believe, because I do not believe any of it. But I do accept that I am not really qualified to argue against it. That would have to be done by people like Behe, Denton, Wells, Wise, Ross and other in creation science. It would be up to me to study their arguements and present thats best I can.

Of course if someone were to ask me why I do not believe in the theory, then I suppose I could share with them my reasons and why I come to those conclusions.

Well, that was the point of the thread. We want to see scientific evidence that all life was created as is.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Something I should like to have clear first:

What would disqualify something as scientific evidence?

I think this would make a real good topic on its own, I would start it but I am out of here very soon.

 

[MewtwoX]

Something I should like to have clear first:

What would disqualify something as scientific evidence?

If the evidence provided is not in proper application of the Scientific Method then it isn't scientific Evidence.

This means the evidence must follow the basic forms of Inductive Logic along with several points, noted in this wiki article below:

...(1) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability and the closely related empirical and practical criterion of testability, (2) a grounding in empirical evidence, and (3) the use of scientific method. The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or theoretical parsimony that fall under the rubric of Ockham's razor. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered non-scientific. The following is a list of additional features that are highly desirable in a scientific theory.

• Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.

• Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.

• Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.

• Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.

• Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.

• Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.

• Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. See Correspondence principle

• Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[JohnR7]

We want to see scientific evidence that all life was created as is.

Is that what the Bible says: That all life was created as it is?