Gap Theory

[gluadys]

Gen 1:2 says that the Earth was void. That would mean it was void of life.

Granted, it was void of life. But this does not imply that it had formerly not been void of life. We are talking about beginnings after all. We would expect earth to be void of life before the first life was created.

If DNA evidence proves or has proven that the Homo Sapiens from a previous creation are the same as the ones that exist today, it wouldn't be a problem from a scriptural POV that I'm aware of.

ok, you will have to clarify this for me. I thought the idea was that there were no humans before 6,000 years ago.

 

[lamblion]

I notice oldwiseguy has been tooting his horn lately with regards to his belief in what he sees as the infallible Gap Theory. I only have a basic familiarity with what the the theory has to say, and I'm interested in exploring it a little here. Maybe if oldwiseguy is up to it, he can defend it in this thread.

Myself, I see Gap Theory as a bit of a cop-out. It seems to have arisen out of the necessity to account for the old age of the earth, as geology has found it. And yet, GT subscribers continue to hold to a literal Creation account in Genesis, rejecting the theory of evolution out of hand. This sort of picking-and-chosing of only those scientific principles that don't contradict the Bible seems a might bit dishonest to me. What do others think?

I have my thoughts in general theology "contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2" if your interestd check it out.

 

[jetzeppelin]

You could equally well say a God that takes 6 days is not a God at all. Why waste 5.999999999 days?



How is that objective? It is your subjective interpretation.




As a scientist, which I'll hazard the guess you are not, you can't find a bigger disconnect than 6000 year old Creation and science. They are so at odds when the evidence is examined as to be mutually exclusive.

Wow, science overwhelmingly supports an earth that is millions of years old? It is amazing. Science cannot prove anything in the past. It is left up to interpretation based upon your axioms, not empirical evidence. And God did not take 6 days to create the earth because He couldn't do it quicker, He did it to set an example for man, a 7 day week with rest on the seventh. As a scientist, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

I'm not going to post facts and figures pointing to a 6,000 year old earth, check out www.ansersingenesis.org for that info.

And yes, evolution, is Godless. Even Darwin recanted evolution on His deathbed, saying he wished he'd had never postulated it, and according to eyewitness and manuscript accounts was saved before he died.

 

[jetzeppelin]

Why not?

Have you done any science? If so, then please tell me what type of science you've done that so neatly interdigitates the Bible with geology, biology, etc.
Myself, I have done and continue to do science. Palaeontology, to be exact. And I can tell you with first hand knowledge of fossils and the rock record that what both the Genesis and the Earth tell us do not coincide.

Do I do science? Do I observe, yes I do. DO I observe the past, and the formation of fossils and rocks? No, do you? No. Do I observe creation, or evolution? No. Do you? No.

As a paleontologist, you should know then, about the immense number of transitional species that are nowhere to be found. And also you should know that fossils have to form quickly, to prevent the organic matter that is being fossilized from decaying away.

And as a paleontologist who believes dinosaurs died millions of years ago, how do you account for the ancient Peruvian Ica stones? Or the fact that human fossils have been found in the same geological strata as dinosaur fossils? Or better yet, why hjave many fossils been found that cover several geological strata that take millions of years to form? And what of the Behemoth in Job? Ever seen an elephant or a hippo with a tail like a cedar? And what about Native American cave paintings of dinosaurs and pterasaurs? Surely all of these things must be untrue, and hoaxes, because the earth has been scientifically proven to be millions/billions of years old.

One either believes the earth is young or old. If one holds to the axiom that it is old, then you will interpret your evidence differently from a YEC. But the question is, where does the evidence point?

How come it took a hundred million years for proteins to evolve into ameoba, but it only took 5 million years for chimps to evolve into man? The evolutionary timetable is based off of an interpreted view of geological strata and an interpreted view of the fossil record.

 

[shernren]

Do I do science? Do I observe, yes I do. DO I observe the past, and the formation of fossils and rocks? No, do you? No. Do I observe creation, or evolution? No. Do you? No.

Actually, all observation occurs "in the past", and none of it in the present. But I won't mess with your mind without your consent so PM me if you really want to know what I mean.

As a paleontologist, you should know then, about the immense number of transitional species that are nowhere to be found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

And also you should know that fossils have to form quickly, to prevent the organic matter that is being fossilized from decaying away.

Rapid fossilization can happen on a 4.5 billion year old planet.

And as a paleontologist who believes dinosaurs died millions of years ago, how do you account for the ancient Peruvian Ica stones?

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

Or the fact that human fossils have been found in the same geological strata as dinosaur fossils? Or better yet, why hjave many fossils been found that cover several geological strata that take millions of years to form?

Substantiate.

And what of the Behemoth in Job? Ever seen an elephant or a hippo with a tail like a cedar?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html
...ever seen a dinosaur with a navel?

Surely all of these things must be untru, and hoazes, because the earth is millions of years old.

Nah, they're hoaxes because ... well, because they're hoaxes? Evolution wouldn't have had a problem today even if there were T-Rexes running around on the street (though I can think of a lot of people who'd be displeased with the arragement).

One either believes the earth is young or old. If one holds to the axiom that it is old, then you will interpret your evidence differently from a YEC. But the question is, where does the evidence point?

Old earth.

How come it took a hundred million years for proteins to evolve into ameoba, but it only took 5 million years for chimps to evolve into man? The evolutionary timetable is based off of an interpreted view of geological strata and an interpreted view of the fossil record.

And the YEC timetable isn't?

 

[Mallon]

Do I do science? Do I observe, yes I do.

Don't kid yourself. Science involves much more than observation. It involves inference, testing, and interpretation. I suppose you don't believe that forensics is "science" either? Good stuff.

As a paleontologist, you should know then, about the immense number of transitional species that are nowhere to be found.

Puulease. I am working on a transitional mosasaur taxon right now. You want a list of fossil transitionals? Look here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Most impressively, do some research on Morganucodon.

And also you should know that fossils have to form quickly, to prevent the organic matter that is being fossilized from decaying away.

Palaeontologists do not deny that. If you believe otherwise, then you are seriously disillusioned. Here's a suggestion: If you really want to know what palaeontologists believe, ask them.

And as a paleontologist who believes dinosaurs died millions of years ago, how do you account for the ancient Peruvian Ica stones?

Read: http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

Or the fact that human fossils have been found in the same geological strata as dinosaur fossils?

Read (notice it's from a creationist website): http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255

Or better yet, why hjave many fossils been found that cover several geological strata that take millions of years to form?

Which, specifically? You do know that not all strata form at the same rate, right? Deposition rates change.

And what of the Behemoth in Job? Ever seen an elephant or a hippo with a tail like a cedar?

There's an excellent refutation to this idea in this very forum: http://www.christianforums.com/t2794985-dinosaurs.html

And what about Native American cave paintings of dinosaurs and pterasaurs?

Which ones?

And by the way, Darwin did not recant on his deathbed:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

NEXT!

 

[random_guy]

Wow, science overwhelmingly supports an earth that is millions of years old? It is amazing. Science cannot prove anything in the past. It is left up to interpretation based upon your axioms, not empirical evidence. And God did not take 6 days to create the earth because He couldn't do it quicker, He did it to set an example for man, a 7 day week with rest on the seventh. As a scientist, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

I'm not going to post facts and figures pointing to a 6,000 year old earth, check out www.ansersingenesis.org for that info.

And yes, evolution, is Godless. Even Darwin recanted evolution on His deathbed, saying he wished he'd had never postulated it, and according to eyewitness and manuscript accounts was saved before he died.

So all of modern forensics, geology, paleontology, cosmology, and astronomy are not real sciences/don't give evidence of anything? All those pretty pictures from Hubble aren't evidence that nebulas and stars exist? According to you, when an astronomer says that there's a ninth planet called Pluto, there's no way to really provide evidence of it since it's all in the past (~5 hours in the past)?

I wager that KerrMetric know more about science than someone that doesn't even understand what axioms and empircal evidence is.

Just because evolution doesn't mention a God doesn't make it godless. Evolution is not Godless any more than Gravity is godless. Your logic is horrible.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

And as a paleontologist who believes dinosaurs died millions of years ago, how do you account for the ancient Peruvian Ica stones?

Earlier you mentioned Answers in Genesis favourably, so maybe what they say about this claim will be helpful to you (it's the last footnote in the article):

• "Unfortunately, some initially plausible evidences for man’s contemporaneity with dinosaurs have later turned out to be mistaken. The controversial ‘Ica stones’—allegedly genuine pre-Inca engravings of dinosaurs from Peru—have since been shown to be a fraud. Creation 24(2) featured these with the cautionary label, ‘Too good to be true?’ In fact, it turns out that an unscrupulous Peruvian surgeon had purchased the stones from a local artist and installed them in his museum, claiming them to be ancient artefacts; the artist himself makes these stones for tourists and never claims them to be ancient. The Institute of Geological Sciences in London has since examined one of the stones and confirmed its modern origin. The fraud was exposed on a Nova television documentary in 2002, entitled ‘The Case of the Ancient Astronauts’."

If even AiG thinks these engravings are a fraud, why would you expect them to convince anyone else?

By the way, the stones also illustrate people using telescopes, exploring space and performing advanced surgery. They remain popular within the UFO subculture as evidence that advanced extraterrestrials looking like humans lived on our planet thousands of years ago.

And what of the Behemoth in Job? Ever seen an elephant or a hippo with a tail like a cedar?

You might find this post interesting.

 

[LoG]

That's surprising - Genesis 1 only states that the earth was formless and void. By bringing the cosmos into it you're committing yourself to having to solve the light-transit-time problem. Does GT have an answer for that too? (How does GT understand the "firmament"?)

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

This verse is a reference to the pre-creation week event because Noah's flood didn't affect the heavens. Therefore it had to be reconstructed. The light transit problem is simple. The light from those stars that are further than say 10,000 light years are showing us their state prior to the destruction. The ones closer by are in their reconstructed state.

Except that the Pleistocene extinction event was definitely over 9000 years ago. What does it have to do with Gap Theory?

It had to be ruined before needing to be reconstructed.

Well, AFAIK, there isn't a single new order emerging in fossils after the Ice Age which was not represented in fossils before the Ice Age. That is not tantamount to disproving Gap Theory, it's true, but it does show that Gap Theory is inherently falsifiable (due to lack of falsifiable hypotheses). Really, does Gap Theory actually predict anything in terms of biological discontinuity?

It should predict a common human ancestor approximately 6000 years ago.

And of course, GT requires two massive global geological discontinuities, about which you've said nothing so far.

Not going to debate the Flood if that is what you are after. Here is a site that gives a reason for so little Flood evidence.

 

[LoG]

No. The fossil record indicates that species survived the extinction. Not that they died and were brought miraculously back to life. That would be a much less parsimonious explanation of the data, and the onus would be on you to back your point up.

How would the fossil record indicate if one pair of each was resurrected to repopulate the Earth?

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Your theory implies it. If you're arguing that God destroyed all life on Earth shortly before He created the new Earth, at what you identify as the Pleistocene extinction, then this would imply that it was the most devastating extinction the Earth has ever seen (after all, ALL life was destroyed). Yet again, we know that the Permo-Triassic extinction was the largest of all -- hundreds of millions of years too early for your theory.

My theory says that there were multiple extinction/creation events throughout the ages. Your reading into my words what your theory implies.

 

[LoG]

Granted, it was void of life. But this does not imply that it had formerly not been void of life. We are talking about beginnings after all. We would expect earth to be void of life before the first life was created.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The Hebrew word for vain is tohuw. The Lord is saying here that He does not create the state of the Earth as we find it in Gen 1:2, but rather it is in the type of state that is a result of a judgement that He has laid on it.
Following that line of reasoning, I see it as reasonable to assume that there was previous creation that God judged and subsequently destroyed.

ok, you will have to clarify this for me. I thought the idea was that there were no humans before 6,000 years ago.

Don't have an answer to that from a scriptural pov. Genesis does state that Adam was specially created so it would be safe to assume that he was somehow different from the previous ones. I can conjecture by going to different sources of material but at this point I'm trying to keep it to the Gap theory as it is determined from the bible.

 

[Mallon]

How would the fossil record indicate if one pair of each was resurrected to repopulate the Earth?

Science can't detect miracles like the one you're suggesting here. So don't pretend that your position is supported by science.
On the other hand, it would be possible to test the scenario you propose. If God knocked back the number of Pleistocene survivors to just two individuals, we should be able to detect such a genetic bottleneck in their descendents. This is not the case.

My theory says that there were multiple extinction/creation events throughout the ages. Your reading into my words what your theory implies.

Your theory says:
1) There were multiple extinction/creation events throughout the ages.
2) The biggest of these, in which God destroyed every living thing on Earth, occurred at the Pleistocene boundary.
3) After the Pleistocene boundary, God created everything anew again.
Is this not what you're proposing? Because if it is, my point still stands that the biggest extinction observed in the rock record occurred at the Permo-Triassic boundary (in which an average of 85% of all life died), and NOT at the Pleistocene, as you suggest. If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

[gluadys]

[Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The Hebrew word for vain is tohuw. The Lord is saying here that He does not create the state of the Earth as we find it in Gen 1:2, but rather it is in the type of state that is a result of a judgement that He has laid on it.
Following that line of reasoning, I see it as reasonable to assume that there was previous creation that God judged and subsequently destroyed.

Well, I am mystified by your reasoning. I can't see how one gets a suggestion of gap theology from this verse. "Forming" the earth "to be inhabited" implies to me that there was a process of formation to prepare the earth to be inhabited by humans. Therefore humans, and other life forms, did not exist on the surface of the earth until that formation was completed. And that is consistent with the usual reading of Gen. 1. And also with scientific scenarios of the formation of the earth.

Don't have an answer to that from a scriptural pov. Genesis does state that Adam was specially created so it would be safe to assume that he was somehow different from the previous ones. I can conjecture by going to different sources of material but at this point I'm trying to keep it to the Gap theory as it is determined from the bible.

Yet if we are descended from Adam, we are like Adam, and the fossil record shows that people of the same species as us existed over 100,000 years ago.

 

[LoG]

Science can't detect miracles like the one you're suggesting here. So don't pretend that your position is supported by science.

Have to disagree with you there Mallon. Science could easily detect the miracle by the observed evidence. Acknowledging it is a different story.

On the other hand, it would be possible to test the scenario you propose. If God knocked back the number of Pleistocene survivors to just two individuals, we should be able to detect such a genetic bottleneck in their descendents. This is not the case.

That's funny, Google turned up quite a number of scientific sites verifying bottlenecks for various species in the Pleistocene age.

Because if it is, my point still stands that the biggest extinction observed in the rock record occurred at the Permo-Triassic boundary (in which an average of 85% of all life died), and NOT at the Pleistocene, as you suggest. If I am wrong, please correct me.

To be honest with you Mallon, I don't really care if your extinction was bigger than my extinction. My point is that the Pleistocene extinction was a total extinction of all life.
Maybe your extinction was total also.

 

[LoG]

Well, I am mystified by your reasoning. I can't see how one gets a suggestion of gap theology from this verse.

Isa 45:18 is in effect saying that God did not create the Earth in the way it is described in Gen 1:2. In fact the phrase without form and void is used in

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

where it is used to describe the Earth after God destroyed it.

Yet if we are descended from Adam, we are like Adam, and the fossil record shows that people of the same species as us existed over 100,000 years ago.

Even if that is the case, can it be proven that they were the same in all respects, not just physical?

 

[Mallon]

Have to disagree with you there Mallon. Science could easily detect the miracle by the observed evidence.

What scientific evidence do you have, then, that the extinction at the end of the Pleistocene (a) destroyed all life, and (b) was followed by a miraculous regeneration of a select few species? Also, what scientific evidence do you have to indicate that the extinction occurred 6,000 years ago rather than 11,000 years ago?

That's funny, Google turned up quite a number of scientific sites verifying bottlenecks for various species in the Pleistocene age.

Do the bottlenecks all coincide, though, as your theory predicts?

My point is that the Pleistocene extinction was a total extinction of all life.

If science supports your claim, then show me.

 

[shernren]

Isa 45:18 is in effect saying that God did not create the Earth in the way it is described in Gen 1:2. In fact the phrase without form and void is used in

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

where it is used to describe the Earth after God destroyed it.

I think that your interpretation of Isaiah 45:18 is superfluous at best and eisegetical at worst. The context of Isaiah 45:18 is a "challenge" between God and the false gods, where God proves His superiority by predicting the rise and divine use of Cyrus. Firstly, Isaiah 45:18 does reflect Genesis 1, I agree. But not for the sake of proving the v1-v2 gap - it invokes Genesis 1 because Genesis 1 is really God's trump card: "Those false gods represent created things, but I am the Creator!"

Secondly, there is a comparison of opposites in vv. 18 and 19. In v18, the chaos which God overcame is compared with the order which God instituted; in v19, the mysterious oracles of dark pagan lands are contrasted with the plain truth of God to Jacob. Clearly there is a parallelism between chaos and pagan idolatry, and between order and God's relationship with His chosen people, so that the "chaos" and "order" are really symbols of the fundamental fact that Yahweh the warrior stands with His people against Chaos and defeats it.

Thirdly, even taking it at absolute bald face value, there is no collision between this and a conventional reading of Genesis 1. Genesis 1 ends with verse 31 where God says that everything is "very good"; by that time God has indeed "formed the earth to be inhabited". Isaiah 45:18 fits perfectly into Genesis 1:31 and there is no rationale to try and squeeze it into the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

As for Jeremiah 4:23, it is clear from the context that Jeremiah is prophesying the destruction of the land of Judea, and that expanding his view to "the world" is a prophetic use of superlatively vivid imagery. Even if one takes the expressions super-literally and says that the whole earth has been destroyed in this vision, just because this chaos was a result of God's destruction the second time does not prove that chaos was a result of God's destruction the first time. It is a circumstancial (I'll grant) but not sufficient proof.

[Yet I will admit that your reservations make sense. Why would God create the world in chaos and formlessness, instead of putting order in right from the start? Was Genesis 1:2 a prototype gone wrong? ... this is precisely where the TE position is strong: there is chaos and formlessness in God's creation in Genesis 1:2 because Genesis is an expression of the archetypal order-vs-chaos Eastern creation story, and the villain exists and is vanquished - without ever having to worry about the philosophical difficulty of where the villain came from in the first place, since it's a story.]

 

[gluadys]

Isa 45:18 is in effect saying that God did not create the Earth in the way it is described in Gen 1:2. In fact the phrase without form and void is used in

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

where it is used to describe the Earth after God destroyed it.

See shernren's excellent response.

Even if that is the case, can it be proven that they were the same in all respects, not just physical?

Evolution does not deal directly with non-physical differences. The closest one can come is to use cultural artifacts as a proxy, and that is more the field of archeology. However, there is a clear continuity of culture going back 25,000-50,000 years ago, well into the late Pleistocene. One would expect some sort of discontinuity if there was a total destruction at the end of the Pleistocene.

 

[LoG]

What scientific evidence do you have, then, that the extinction at the end of the Pleistocene (a) destroyed all life, and (b) was followed by a miraculous regeneration of a select few species? Also, what scientific evidence do you have to indicate that the extinction occurred 6,000 years ago rather than 11,000 years ago?

(a)It destroyed all life because the Earth was without form and void. (b) They were regenerated because the are alive today.
Creation ocurred approximately 6000 years ago, not the extinction.

If science supports your claim, then show me.

Science says that there was a large extinction event in the last 10000 years. The bible says there was a creation event 6000 years ago on a Earth that was void of life. Prove to me that wasn't the case.

 

[shernren]

(a)It destroyed all life because the Earth was without form and void. (b) They were regenerated because the are alive today.
Creation ocurred approximately 6000 years ago, not the extinction.

Proof by assuming the proved is de facto invalid.