A Designer Isn’t a ‘God of the Gaps’

[@philosophicallogic]

This was helpful to me, it’s always great to see informed creationists explaining the evidence.

[@James-oj6ck]

Thanks for this clarification.

[@dokidokibibleclub]

Evos invoke their deity to fill in the gaps of their faith. Google of the gaps. They will accept any argument no matter how weak, even if Google's featured answer gets refuted and changed every 5 years

[@victorschabort913]

Very helpful!

[@TickedOffPriest]

What I often see is Evolution of the Gaps.

[@nonprogrediestregredi1711]

The theory of evolution by natural selection is observable and demonstrable.

[@creationministriesintl]

The propsed mechanism of evolution is observable. The historical claims of evolution (ie evolutionary biology) are not demonstrable or observable. Neither has it been demonstrated that the observable changes (such as natural selection, and mutation) are actually capable of producing the changes need for the biohistory of evolutionary biology. This is something many scientists will acknowledge even if they won't abandon the story of evolution. "Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection. You may recall the gist from school biology lessons. If a creature with poor eyesight happens to produce offspring with slightly better eyesight, thanks to random mutations, then that tiny bit more vision gives them more chance of survival. The longer they survive, the more chance they have to reproduce and pass on the genes that equipped them with slightly better eyesight. Some of their offspring might, in turn, have better eyesight than their parents, making it likelier that they, too, will reproduce. And so on. Generation by generation, over unfathomably long periods of time, tiny advantages add up. Eventually, after a few hundred million years, you have creatures who can see as well as humans, or cats, or owls. This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading." Buravani, S., Do we need a new theory of evolution?, The Guardian, Tue 28 Jun 2022 To the evolutionist "The core idea is that all life descends from a single universal common ancestor (a microbe), and through slow gradual, step by step change, all life on earth developed into its current state." "This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat." This means, that so far, we have no good reason to believe it. The great tale of evolution has fallen flat. This mechanism (evolution by natural selection and mutation) does not actually work. Evolution doesn't explain life, and the scientific community knows it. They believe the biohistory anyways, and have faith that they can eventually develop a working mechanism for evolution. They expect you to simply trust that eventually, your secular high priests will be able to construct a version of evolutionary theory that works. Realistically though as mentioned the way evolution is taught in schools is crude, and misleading. Most people think the mechanism works, and that evolution is true science. Neither is the case, but you won't hear that in school, for now at least, almost everyone continues to be taught a version of evolution that the scientific community knows doesn't work. This wouldn't be the first time though. While natural selection has always been part of the theory of evolution, natural selection only removes or preserves features that are already in a population. Differential reproduction doesn't create variation, you need a source of variation that natural selection can act on. Darwin's proposal for that source was disproven, but evolution was not abandoned. Today, the notion that mutation and natural selection function as the engine has also been shown false, but evolution has not been abandoned, and we will likely continue to be taught this falsified mechanism until they find a new mechanism to tack on that they think will solve the problem. creation.com/natural-selection-evolution

[@johnglad5]

@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Natural selection is heredity. Heredity and mutation make offspring different from their parents. Neither has shown to increase info in the genome. Bacteria have been evolving for 500 million years, we should see living transitions. We don't. Evolution needs a process to explain the changes it claims to make.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 , true they are facts.

[@roblangsdorf8758]

Scientism is a religious belief that life came about through evolution, which is a story that is full of gaps.

[@aprilkoning4501]

Very informative and interesting! Thanks!

[@BoyKagome]

The more we discover, the more we find God is necessary.

[@Hydroverse]

They have a Nature of the gaps. That, and knowing how the painter paints doesn't rid the need for the painter.

[@boxelder9167]

“I believe in science.” - Sir Oopsitchanged 1672 AD

[@leefredrickson398]

Science is a tool, like a microscope or telescope. I believe in tools too. I also believe in a Creator God.

[@boxelder9167]

@@leefredrickson398 - Some things work out better when you get naked before you start but frying bacon is not one of them.

[@leefredrickson398]

@@boxelder9167 ??? SOGGY TOTTS

[@henryschmit3340]

In one sense a Designer is the 'God of the gaps', because in reality, there are gaps that only a Designer can fill.

[@mattl3023]

Remember that we believe in God and His account of how He created, not because of any evidence we see but as a result of His Word and Holy Spirit convicting us of its Truth. The evidence certainly confirms our belief since what we see in God's world will by default agree with what we read in His Word. He is the God of all Truth. God has spoken in accordance with what He did. We cannot make our belief to rest on our fallen senses and reasoning and count His Word as a mere adjunct. His Word and Spirit are first. Then we look at the evidence which, by the way, is all in our favour. Thanks for this thought-provoking discussion.

[@shredhed572]

Romans chapter one says differently. It says God was known by His Creation, not scripture. It is believed Job is the oldest biblical book. But no one knows when it was written. Sans that, there has only been a written collection of of them going back to only 3500 years. For thousands of years prioeto that there was no Bible. Of course we are blessed with a complete bible now. And I understand where you're coming from. But the sciences in the west were developed by Christians. They understood, and expected the natural world to contain the fingerprints of God. In fact Theology was once considered the Queen of the science. Think of that. Theology - a science. It's ironic in my opinion that materialistic scientists expect to universe to be governed by laws. This is an act of faith on their part. Though none would ever admit that. Hugh Ross came to be a believer in the Savior through examining science plus later looking into every religion for which there were sacred (to them) scriptures. He deduced that the bible is the only one that could withstand the scrutiny of scientific evaluation. And that brings us back to the bible once again, lol. Take care

[@mattl3023]

@@shredhed572 Hi. Thanks for your reply. You need to make the distinction between general revelation and special revelation. God's works in the natural world, eg. how plants grow，reproduction, the motion of the planets etc. is general revelation and this is available to all who look at them. They are evidence of a Creator. See Psalm 19 for an example. But they are not sufficient to reveal God's holy character and his will for humanity. For that you need special revelation. The Bible is God's special revelation. You can't learn about a six day creation by Yahweh by observing photosynthesis though he created the process of photosynthesis during that six day creation. You won't learn about Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity taking on human flesh, obeying all of God's Law and then dying for sinners by observing a chicken hatching from an egg. If you know God, you can fall down in worship of him when you see his works but your knowledge of him had to come first. Atheists also fall down in worship when they see same wonderful things we see but they worship the things themselves or the universe itself. They don't worship God because they don't know him. See Romans 1 as you just mentioned. Paul, in writing to Timothy tells him "... and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings [what we call the Old Testament] which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 3:15. He doesn't tell Timothy "You have known about Nature from your childhood which is able to make you wise for salvation through Jesus Christ." See also 2 Timothy 3:16. Regarding there not being a Bible for thousands of years until 3500 years ago, that's not true. When God was creating the world in the first six days, Adam wasn't around. But, it is logical that right after Adam's creation in day six, God would have revealed to him what he did in those six days prior to his creation. Adam would then have recorded this for future generations. Word of mouth passed down is not reliable. It would have been written by Adam himself. So, there's the first appearance of the Bible in those first 5 chapters recorded by the first man m. Partial in comparison to the full revelation, most certainly yes. But humanity did not sit around for thousands of years without any word from God. They had the partial word from God from the beginning as per Genesis 1:1. That word was both spoken and written. That partial word would have been passed from father to son along godly bloodlines down to Abraham and eventually to Moses who acted as an editor working with faithful copies of the very words of preserved by God's providence. As for Hugh Ross, if you want to grow in your faith, steer well clear of him and men like him. He places fallen human reason above God's word and goes astray, departing from God's Word from its very foundation. You yourself said that his reasoning lead him to conclude that the Bible was the true revelation. Human is corrosive acid to true faith In fact, he stands in opposition to God and his word. He has a different understanding to that of Jesus and his apostles. Prove that he doesn't. I don't view him as my brother in Christ. He walks after the counsels of his own heart and invites others to follow him. Please don't. Creation Ministries International and Answers In Genesis have lots of relevant resources for establishing Christians in their faith. Hugh Ross, not so much. Start with God's Word and make that the foundation for your faith. Peace, brother.

[@keyboardheroism]

Thank you

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

Science for me is away of understanding all that God created. Even if science finds an answer to something that once was attributed to God, you can see it as explaining how aspects of creation function.

[@technicianbis5250]

A scientist who resists the truth is not a scientist. When we see design then it's designed.

[@georgeworley6927]

A designer is most certainly is god of the gap's fallacy. The propaganda put by the supporters of the designer fallacy use the same documents that creationists use except the documents have been put through a word processor where the word god was replaced with designer. If the universe, the planet, animal, and humans were designed, the designer did not do a good job at designing everything. Let start with the universe. The universe is not designed to support life. The universe is not designed to continue on for ever. The universe continues to expand which is not good. Next I will talk about how badly our planet is designed. Only 43% the earth can support life as we know it. Two thirds of the earth is covered with salt water. 10% of the earth is covered by ice. The continents aren't stable. Volcanos, hurricanes, tornados, and other natural disasters exist. Finally I will talk about animals and humans. Humans and most animals procreate using the same organs that we expel waste products from. Humans and quite a few animals eat and breathe through the same tube. I have been told we don't from several creationists, then why did I choke when a soft drink went down the wrong path? The mouth and nose are connected. The pharynx is a passageway for food and air. This is a bad design. Nothing is designed. Your god and your creator are one in the same entity. It is god/creator of the gaps fallacy.

[@Pyr0Ben]

jeez... i would've thought you were right until i actually thought about it for 30 seconds. 1) The Earth is designed to support life. No one said the entire universe was, or at least that's not what they meant. 2) You don't know for sure that the Earth was always like this. If Genesis is to be taken seriously, Earth was initially created much better than it is now, and the Fall and subsequent Flood changed all of that. 3) I happen to really like my body. If you wanna make a new one for yourself, then go ahead. Your complaints are subjective. "God of the Gaps" isn't a fallacy, it's a strawman. Of course God exists, anyone with an honest, functioning brain can figure that one out. That doesn't mean science doesn't exist. When we figured out gravity, it didn't remove the need for God to pull things down; all it means is gravity is one of God's mechanisms for running the universe. If anything, your belief that science can replace God is a "Science of the Gaps" fallacy.

[@webstercat]

The Bible doesn’t teach this 🌏

[@CarnivoreStork]

Well here we are a year later, No pro-vaccine update from the CMI crew? Did you guys get one or both boosters? Or just kept to the basic first two after seeing sports players all over the world courts, fields & tracks keeling over. Did you see Tucker’s piece on the vaccine study From the Lancet? I See you did a video on eugenics, but still haven’t figured the diabolical correlation yet.

[@creationministriesintl]

Obviously I cannot speak to the personal actions of everyone in this international organization. Frankly, I would be surprised if any members of the Australian office watched Tucker do a piece about vaccines. If you have questions about it, then you are welcome to go to creation.com, and look at the article about the topic, or ask through the ticketing system. CMI was upfront about the cons of the vaccine and potential concerns. Among the cons listed we stated "We do not know that there will be zero long-term problems. There are many examples of pharmaceuticals that passed through every stage of testing, and only on being approved for use were terrible side-effects manifested. Yet, this could be said of any new product in any area of society. There is a difference between a toaster and a vaccine, however, which is why these companies spent so many millions of dollars in safety testing." It is no massive revelation that the vaccine has had adverse health effects on some individuals. CMI counseled that anyone considering vaccination should speak with their physician to determine how safe it is for them. Obviously not every doctor will get it right, and if these sports leagues were forcing players to get vaccinated, then players (for the sake of their careers) would get the vaccines even if they faced greater risk. It is always sad and often frightening when a medication has adverse effects, but as we see with any medication they come with a list of potential side effects, and they don't always apply to all people equally. Some of the effects are minor, some extreme. Ultimately its a risk assessment for each individual to make. Your comment on a diabolical correlation is genuinely vague. So there is not much to say about it.

[@redeemedstone]

@@creationministriesintl but you must admit, forcing any such ‘medication’ on a person is diabolical. Particularly when a person is healthy.