There still is no solid evidence for the gap.

I don't know how God did it. I wish I knew, so I could answer this question.

lol, i don't think solid evidence is really a theme in this thread.
there's a lot more evidence for one than the other though, in my opinion.

Gah.
Okay
For me talk about this, I need to know on what you stand.
All I can say is that, the gap theory is proven wrong, and the quote you used earlier in the topic (very beginning for exact) was that some scripture is used metaphors, but how do you metaphorically write Genesis 1;2 without large gaps and contradictions?

To be honest with you, there's a lot that science still has no solid evidence for. Take Evolution.

No scientist in the world just says " evolution. " They add the keyword, " THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. "

that's pretty false. evolution is 100% true, we can see it happening, u just don't believe in macro evolution. no scientist would deny micro evolution, it's provable because the time scale is shorter so we can observe it. the mechanisms of macro and micro evolution are the same, just different scales, just like macro and micro economics.

pointing out that it's a theory doesn't mean anything to me, because it's a scientific theory, which is drastically different than how we commonly think of theories. in science evolution is regarded as a theory and a fact, just as gravity.

We can see evolution happening?

This is slowly turning into a creationism vs. evolution

-shrugs-

By the way- I fail to see evolution being proven 100%.

-walks off-

micro evolution is observable

Examples, please.

^ Of course micro-evolution exsists.

Species bone structure changes in different areas of the world, but it is within the species.

BUT

We never see the species that is micro-evolving change species.

darwins finches alone are an example. u can see it dogs, ect. we see animals change, evolve.

micro evolution isn't disputed.

edit:
by christians either, i've never heard a christian disagree with micro evolution.



ya think?
that's not what micro evolution is, so why would u

^

I was simply stating microevolution in broad terms.

"...microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size. "

I still have yet to see something macro-evolve.

macro evolution takes a long time...u couldn't observe that in ur life time. the earth is old. if u accept micro evolution then i don't know why u would deny macro evolution as if it's a completely different process. it's just micro evolution over a long period of time.


let's turn that reasoning around and use it on some bible claims and see what happens

Right, the mediator stuff.



It's not really evolution. They aren't gaining anythign new. Those colors were always in the gene pool. It's evolution it's natural selection.

It would be similar to all the people with a naturally low metabolism dieing off. The world would then be skinny. Humanity wouldn't be evolving, it would just lose that gene because it stopped passing it on when all the fat people died.

Um, Josh, I think you contradicted yourself.

Yeah you're right. I just mixed it up. I meant to say low metabolism.. //edited.

natural selection + mutation + gene flow + genetic drift + 3 billion years = macro evolution

Hopefully this thread doesn't turn into CREATION VS. EVOLUTION debate.

^yeah i agree, i think that topic already exists anyway. i don't want this to turn into that either.

so hmmmmmm
i can't think of another question at the moment to get this back on track, i'll be back once one comes to me

I agree,

All I was saying is that the term "micro-evolution" is just another way to promote evolution. At least that's how I see it. Micro-evolution is just another word for "Natural Selection". It's not evolution at all.

i think we can't really debate this because we're all confused on terminology. i get what u're saying about natural selection, and yes u are right to an extent. but micro evolution is natural selection and genetic drift. natural selection is responsible for the survival of a beneficial trait, but that alone isn't micro evolution, or yeah we'd just call it natural selection. since gene drift is incorporated, then it's no longer just natural selection alone.

which reminds me. if u believe the creation story, and believe the earth isn't really billions of years old, where do dinosaurs come in? and how come we don't find evidence of human life with evidence of dinosaur life? they'd have to live at the same time if god made everything straight up in 6 days it seems.

I don't know, I wish I had some of this evidence. -__-

I'm a weird person. I've never had misgivings about the fact of evolution, and I went to a private parochial school for kindergarten. I immediately shrugged off the creation story as just that, story-time, just like Cinderella et al. I just look at the world today, the diversity of organisms, the mechanisms of genetic function, metabolism, and can tell that this whole deal was shaped by natural forces working by chance, in the same way that you can tell that the square root of 81 is 9. I'm not saying I'm smart, just that I never understood why this fact instantly disproves the existence of God, or why the church thinks that it's a threat to 1800 years of theology and epistemology.

what it may disproves depends on whether or not u take the bible as literally true, and whether u believe genesis is really how it happened. as well as other various things, like the age of the earth, ect.

u could still believe in evolution, and that a god gave it the first push to start things.

Was Jesus the only incarnate of God?

Yes.

-edit
wait, that's a trick question.

In the Old Testament, there was the Angel of the Lord, which was the pre-incarnate of Jesus Christ.

So...sorta'. If you mean the only human incarnate, yes. There was only one other incarnate, and that was Jesus as the Angel of the Lord.

Yeah, you could. There are parts of the bible that are shady. I'll admit it, but the most important thing in the Bible is the core message, Love. Not the little minute details that doubters pick at to prove one scholar's theory about a verse in the Bible wrong.

You could interpret certain parts of the Bible in several different ways. Their are some parts that just aren't perfectly clear . After all, you can't record every minuet detail of history into a 1000-2000 page book. In the end you have to realize that there are some parts that are clear.

Okay, I'll try to answer this as best as possible. When the Flood occured in the Bible, God sent 2 animals of each species onto the boat. A reasonable guess for how dinosaurs were put on the boat was that they took two baby dinosaurs. After the flood occured, yatta yatta yatta, animals and noah with his family "re-established" the earth.

I believe just like how some species die out, so did the dinosaurs. Of course, we cannot prove that dinosaurs no longer exsist. All is still within the realm of possibility from a scientific view.

Also there has been Pre-Inca Indian pot found with a picture of a person riding a dinosaur.

Not forgeting that there are also 11,000 Inca stones with dinosaurs and humans together on them.

I hope this help.

no, it didn't.

doesn't tell me why we don't find human fossils or even evidence of human existence along side dinosaur fossils. doesn't explain why dinosaurs are older than the earth is supposed to be in the first place supposedly. if u believe in a young earth, which i guess u do if u think dinosaurs and humans were running around together.

i mean, u're talking to someone who puts no stock in the bible or the story of noah. so i guess if u really think that's a reasonable explanation then u can stick to it.

No, we were too busy killing them.

Besides, 80% of the world's species can swim underwater, or fly. Noah's ark is very probable.

i wonder where the ark is now. that thing must have taken forever to build. wasn't noah like 600 years old though?

Some people have some theories about where the ark maybe, but I don't have any solid evidence on that.

Noah was 950 when he passed away.

yeah i've heard some theories. even though, if they found it i don't think it would prove anything unless we can prove it belonged to noah. since the whole flood and ark tale doesn't solely belong to the bible, we wouldn't know if it was the ark or the other ark from other ark stories that predate the bible.

pretty old guy.

I was simply trying to explain it from a Christian view, which is what the topic revolved around.

Actually, they have found human and dinosaur foot prints together. In the Paluxy River, there has been found thosands of dinosaur footprints. They also found human tracks and dinosaur tracks together. Sometimes the human tracks are even within the dinosaur tracks.

I'm not saying the above is factual or even proves the exsistence, but other tracks have been found within dinosaur tracks that suggests they co-exsisted.

and u get this from...?
do u count the hoax one in texas too?

edit:
sorry, i missed the part where u said that u don't know it's even factual in the first place. lol. well that doesn't help us much

I personally believe that dinosaurs and humans existed together, although, that literally makes me sound really retarded.

yeah, i mean i just have a hard time keeping a straight face when we get into talking about humans and dinosaurs together and 900 year old people. so many of these things are so out there, they just seem like every other myth. a lot sound exactly like every other one, since a lot of them are so similar. it's just hard for me to understand why these things are true, but all the other outrageous and supernatural claims that people have been making for thousands of years are false. it sounds like the same stuff. we don't believe the others, so why these stories. they have just as much evidence supporting them it seems

Well, what can I say? I believe a man walked on water, changed water into wine, and that he died on the Cross, rose again all because he loved all of us so much that he'd be willing to go through humiliation and death for us.

Were years the same length in the bible as they are now?
I can't believe that people lived as long as some of the people in the bible, but if they didn't measure years the same way we do then it makes sense.

Back in earlier times, the human race was genetically pure, so there were no real illnesses ( or STD's :P ) going around. So yes, same measurement for years. 365 days.

But even the most healthy people age.
They age because cells deteriorate over time.
Your body will kill you when you get old, regardless of whether or not you are healthy.
One of the oldest living men contributed his old age to drinking whiskey and smoking cigars
(I read it in a newspaper, and I am searching for the article now)

I wish I could say more on this topic as well, but I don't know how Noah ( and other people in his time ) managed to live so long. But it's to my understanding that because of certain diseases and sickness not being around, the human body was genetically very clean, so he managed to live extremely long years.

No clue, though.

Do you people realize that Noah's story, as told in the Bible, is scientifically impossible?

Explain.

I, too, am curious.

The dimensions of the ship (often estimated at about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high) are, embarrassingly, both too small and far too large. Too large in that, historically, the longest wooden ship (and this is after the invention of steel) was the USS Dunderberg (a french vessle which had a fifty foot ram contributing to its 377 foot length.) Not even this ship, built in 1856, matches the 450 foot (137 meter) giant of the Ark. And, the USS Dunderberg, even with the structural supports of steel, was not a seaworthy ship - it only made one voyage (poorly, might I add). The architecture of the Ark (har har), without the aids of more modern technology, is impossible. The ship would be, in no way, seaworthy. It would sink if it even got the chance to get out to sea. Further, and worse of all, even with these fairy tale dimensions, the ship could have never carried two of every species living on this globe - let alone, carry them and still maintain its integrity. The ship is just too small.

Geologically, the evidence derived by observation of the Earth are contrary to the occurrence of a global flood - even water rising sixty feet for a day. Not only is it embarrassing to ponder the source and disappearance of such great quantities of water - you must also bear the reality that not a single respected and educated geologist has ever, in modern science, suggested a reality behind global flood stories (despite their mythological popularity). In the most fundamental sense: the sediment and fossil organization found upon our continents would be impossible in the case of a global flood.

And that's really just the beginning.

Should God be real, I would see no problem in him materializing all of this.

Please, do not also forget the geologically contrary states of our earth and continents.
And, further, don't underestimate the continued absurdity we find within the story of Noah's ark. For instance, Noah was commanded also to gather food for all his passengers (where and how would one man gather and keep safe such food?). Note also, this food had to feed two of every species on earth (and then some) and the supply had to remain sufficient and appropriate for a "hundred and fifty days."

NoSex, I was arguing with someone else and I'm honestly really happy that I can debate with someone that can I can at least comprehend.

I'll try to answer tomorrow.