Some Help from the Creationist

Go ask a creationists.

Thread title is "Some Help from the Creationist".

And yet almost every time you post anything that touchs on the concept you supply evidence that you do not know what a theory is.Perhaps it would put me in my place if you gave your own wording of what a theory is and why that definition makes your comments regarding gaps in the fossil record as being a gap IN the theory. The concepts are only a wee bit subtle so you should be able to manage if you have done enough work to deserve the right to make any comments about it.Commenting from a complete lack of understanding is an interesting position.

Ok, just for you, since I respect you.You start with a hypothesis, to look for a logical explanation for unexplained things. As you collect evidence, you can then speculate on a theory. It remains a theory until it is proven.A gap in a theory to me, is an evidence or the lack thereof that would go against the theory. I guess I should use the word flaw in a theory, instead of a gap. I do not represent this complete lack of understanding, but I do not know many things. If I was completely unbiased, or "a real scientist" I would look at the evidence and be convinced myself that evolution did indeed explain how we got to the level of being that we are. The fossil record, and the basic progression of species through the layers makes it pretty obvious that some form of evolution was going on.But were we evolved from those species, or did God make us just the way we are. Did he make all the species over time, and there is no speciation? Or is there speciation.The experiment with bacteria in the petri dish doesn't convince me that we speciate. Bacteria may just as well be designed to do that, and never actually become anything more.Then there is the whole concept of how this all started in the first place, and how we beat the odds of ever forming in the universe. And as we look further into the universe we are discovering, that it is way more hostile than we first imagined, or hypothesized, and that life is indeed truely rare, beyond rare. The odds, or statistics would indicate that we should have never formed.I also look at things in nature, like the bacteria flagellum, and it cries out design to me. Its so weird how if we did evolve from that, or by the same process, that we now design those same things, ie electric motors being similiar to bacteria flagellum, yet we never saw a bacteria flagellum, before designing an electric motor. It's perfectly normal for us to design an electric motor, yet the bacteria flagellum is evolved.This represents all what I felt before I became a Christian, sans the bacteria flagellum. But when I experienced the Holy Spirit of God, God spoke directly to me in my heart, and told me he was the creator. Now I spend my days trying to figure out how that happened, whether I went crazy or there is a God. If there is a God, then I feel blessed to have been touched by him. I am just being realistic in my approach here.Yes I believe in creation. How it happened, I do not know. My belief is based on subjective, and objective evidence, and the sum of my life experiences. Like you, I am left with no choice to believe in God, except you choose not to believe.Did a flood happen? I don't know. It sure could have, and the evidence could have been tampered with by the Al-mighty himself. I just think that it is a big mistake for anyone to try and prove God exists, when God works by love, and spirit, and by things we cannot see or measure.Sitting here and asking where the evidence of a flood is, is pointless. It's like saying since we don't know exactly how life started here on earth, then it must not have happened, and there is no God, there is a God.I rambled, sorry.

You have used the word "proven" that is not something that you should use in this context since it is both a loaded word and subject to several meanings.You mostly describe a process in that statement you don't do much in the way of defining a theory. The phrase "logical explanation" begins to suggest some idea of it. Perhaps you could have another go at the definition? Obviously evidence which goes against a theory is a suggestion that there is a flaw in the theory. The evidence isn't the flaw itself I'd say if I wanted to be dammed pedantic. Lack of evidence is much, much less likely to be useful in improving a theory as it most frequently simple means just that something has yet to turn up or is beyond the technology that is availble to test.A true gap or flaw would be something that the theory should explain but can not; at least to me. An example of this in the original Darwinian forumlation was the lack of a mechanism for hereditity. In fact, a serious flaw should have been apparent with the idea about blended inheritance of the time. Blending as, I think, some saw it then would not allow the new features of an organism to not be washed out in a population.

A plausible principal, or set of principals used to explain a phenomena.But somehow, it always seems to go beyond that. You are more ready to accept theories than me. Which is a good thing, because that is what drives you, and that leads you to more answers, and more questions.I do the same thing when I troubleshoot in the HVAC business. I see a problem, and then come up with a theory based on my knowledge, of what is causing it, then I test it to see if I am right. My theory is derived from asking questions to the owner of the equipment, and taking readings of said equipment. I am known to be on of the best troublshooters in the local area, and fellow tradesmen call me for answers often. I use my God given logic, coupled with education to figure these problems out. It's not much difference than science.I also do the same thing with my hobbies. I am into the more difficult hobbies.

I apologize, you do know what a theory is. Thanks for the trouble.

That's really a hypothesis, not a theory -- at least not a theory in the scientific sense.

I won't go into the details of the whole thing, but it's both sometimes.

I think that the distinction is only one of degree of certainty so I wouldn't get in a knot about it.

This isn't completely correct. What you are doing is seeing a problem, then coming up with a theory based on what you want to believe, then looking for information that supports it and discarding information that contradicts it.You may not realize you are doing it, but you are. You've already concluded that there is a God, that he created you (humans) for some special purpose. Anything which contradicts that is discarded complete.If it wasn't discarded, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all

I did.I emailed ICR and asked them what method they use to measure the age of the earth and what results they have obtained.This is their answer:

quote:

---

Precise age measurments are not possible, since the Noahic Flood saturated the strata laid down.

---

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

That would be incorrect. That is not what I am doing. There are no belief's involved, when it comes to troubleshooting. Also incorrect. Since I spent 38 years of my 40 years of existance not believing in God, and then not being sure, I somehow found God. How did I find him? Exactly the way Jesus taught us to find him.Since "finding God" for myself, I have been testing myself, and my beliefs. That was part of the reason I joined this forum, over 2000 posts ago. The other part was to share with people what I had found.
I have learned many lessons on both aspects of that, and my faith is even stronger than ever. I thank all of you in this forum for taking time to talk to me, and explain things to me that I may have the wrong idea about. Also to take the time and read about what I believe in.It would seem no matter how much God continues to prove himself to me, there is always doubt. I guess that's what faith is all about. All I wish to do is keep my faith real, and disregard tradition, and merely Love God, and love others.There is an authority bestowed upon you when you become a born again Christian. It is not by your own labeling that you become one, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. When this happens, you become a whipping post for others who don't believe. People constantly look towards men in hopes of finding God. We all seek the truth. One day you may find yourself on this side of the fence, and then you will understand me better.

So, you are a born again who doesn't believe in God?You come to creationist beliefs through some sort of atheistic scientific deduction? Could you explain that process to us?

When did I say I didn't believe in God. Especially since I feel he has spoken directly to me, and continues to speak to me daily.Would you need scientific deduction if God spoke to you directly?