A simple question

[gluadys]

Hello genez

I agree, man today classifies his guesses as facts based upon what is known but never wanting to come to the conclussion that what is known is only a small fraction of what there is to know and there are many things yet for us to understand that can make what we know to be true today is actually not true at all..

Maybe the average person thinks like that. Anyone who works in science or follows the work of scientists would emphatically agree that we know only a small fraction of what there is to know. A fraction much smaller than 10%, probably smaller than 1%.

 

[gluadys]

That is not the case. I simply do not know how to classify the humanoid creation. For if it was the same as ours, then Jesus would have to die for their souls. But, these were not a part of this world. Jesus only died for the sins of this world. "World" in the Bible quite often speaks of all mankind that exists in this creation.

The thing is that regardless of classification, if gap theory is correct, then there ought to be, someplace in hominid history, a sharp clear distinction between "humans" who lived prior to the gap and those created after the gap. No such distinction exists.

Professor Stan Ashby (Ancient Languages, Harvard) who after retirement taught at a Bible College, taught on the word used by Jeremiah. "People", he explained, was a generic term used for men.

Like the word "cat" can be used for a tom cat and a mountain lion, this term was used for mankind. Has there been any time in our history that mankind was wiped out?

No, and that includes not just our species but our whole genus going back over 2 million years. There have been bottlenecks (times when the population was reduced to perhaps as few as 10,000 people) but no complete extinction. So,whether one is using a specific or a generic term for "people" the answer is still "No".

Mass extinctions may have not have always come from God's hand. Satan when he fell lost his perfection. And, like when Adam fell, the existing creation fell with him.

Whether caused by God or Satan is not the point. The point is that the last mass extinction prior to the current one was 65 million years ago, not 6,000 years ago. That is a difference of over 4 magnitudes.

And it did not wipe out life on earth. Only some species (non-avian dinosaurs, ammonites) became extinct. Many survived to repopulate the earth without the necessity of new creations.

 

[GenemZ]

There maybe some gap theorists that say the geologic evidence points to the gap theory being correct, oh well, so do evolutionists and creationists.

Yet, the only one that remains CONSISTENT with the evidence and God's Word is the GAP theory. Just because YEC's distort the evidence to fit... and TOE's run with a theory that seems to be logical, but denies God's Word; does not make them equal standing with the GAP theory. The GAP theory preceded the other two.

The fossil evidence revealed the validity later on of what scholars saw in Scripture. The other two theories distort God's Word in order to be accepted.

Please, keep that in mind as you attempt to be "fair and balanced" towards all sides, here. Only one does not distort and suppress truth in order to appear to be consistent with Scripture.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Yet, the only one that remains CONSISTENT with the evidence and God's Word is the GAP theory. Just because YEC's distort the evidence to fit... and TOE's run with a theory that seems to be logical, but denies God's Word; does not make them equal standing with the GAP theory. The GAP theory preceded the other two.

I have not seen an instance of TE legitimately denying God's Word---only what others claim is God's Word.

Gap theory is clearly NOT consistent with the physical evidence of the history of earth or of humanity. The briefest of excursions into geology and/or genetics show this clearly.

That gap theology preceded the other two is irrelevant. If it is false, it is false, no matter whether it is an old interpretation or a new one. From the perspective of science it is indubitably false.

The fossil evidence revealed the validity later on of what scholars saw in Scripture.

Not true. No one acquainted with the fossil evidence could point to any gap of the nature envisioned by gap theology. There is a great deal of fossil evidence which affirms there was never any such gap. Especially not during the history of human existence.

The other two theories distort God's Word in order to be accepted.

I think some forms of YEC do distort the scriptures. But I don't see OEC or TE distorting the biblical witness. They just disagree with your interpretation of it. Of course, probably all human interpretations, including gap theology, distort God's Word. That is inevitable, given human fallibility.

Please refrain from identifying your personal preference in biblical interpretation with God's Word. It's not and never is.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Maybe the average person thinks like that. Anyone who works in science or follows the work of scientists would emphatically agree that we know only a small fraction of what there is to know. A fraction much smaller than 10%, probably smaller than 1%.

I am the average person and I do think like that. You wont ever hear me argueing scientific evidence's because I haven't studied them nor do I understand them. Science was always my least favorite subject in school and remains so even now.

That fraction I gave was just a guess and was designed to piece together my overall point but I can gladly agree with your opinion of it being more like less than 1%.

Here's my understanding of theory. Scientists have many evidence's before them in which they hypothesize; assume or suppose. They then form a hypothesis; they form a supposition, a foundation to work with. When they have formulated enough evidence to support their suppositions through observing experiments in a working hypothesis they have then created a theory.

With that being said, I have to believe that since we're only talking about less than 1% of the data we are makeing a guess about the other 99%. I don't look at the 1% but at the 100%. God is the source of the 100% and because I believe God contradicts the theory of evolution in His word and truth it doesn't matter to me how much of the 1% is thrown at me, I will only go by what God says for He knows all. He is at the point where we all want to be so I put my trust in Him and listen.

I do believe in evolutionary processes. Micro evolution is fact to me and is apart of that less than 1% that we do know but macro evolution is a guess that I believe the other 99% of knowledge will show to be false.

genez has for the most part represented my belief in what God says very well. I can't say I agree with him on everything and he knows this. Him and I have discussed this subject before, it's been awhile though.

 

[GenemZ]

It is not so much explaining the geological record as being consistent with it. I realize gap theory was created from studying the bible long before we had any inkling of the age of the earth, so it was not developed in order to explain the geologic record.

The original Gap folks had no axe to grind. It was seen as being evident from what the Scripture teaches. It was not created as a means to counter Darwin as YEC's always scream as they hold their ears being told that is not so.

But it does seem to me that in the 19th century, gap theorists appropriated the geological discovery of the antiquity of the earth as a scientific validation that they were on the right track as compared to young earth theories. So while geologic evidence would not be necessary, it was seen as providing a welcome additional support.

Again, the insight they saw into God's Word shows that at that time no religious bias was driving them to force them to see this existence of prior creation. YEC's have been screaming its only a recent theory. Keep that in mind. Because of that it gets rejected by Christians who believe what they are told without checking it out for themselves.

Now that is what I gleaned from a very brief investigation of gap theory nearly 30 years ago. Things may have changed since then.

It all depends on who did the reporting back then. Few back then had the records to show the roots of this insight.

If the gap was an actual occurrence in the history of the earth, the gap theorist does need to know when it occurred and how long it lasted and when it ended. A global destruction of the sort envisaged by gap theory could not fail to leave its mark in the geologic record, just as the meteor impact of 65 million years ago left a global record of iridium in the earth.

A meteor so huge as to effect the entire planet? And they can not find the meteor? Any theories of what became of such a huge meteor?

If one cannot identify the occurrence of the gap geologically, the only rational explanation is that it did not happen in history.

The Bible leaves it as being prehistoric. Jeremiah in the Spirit flashed back before known time. Just as Moses did when he wrote the creation account. God is not limited by time and space. Prophets tapped into this essence at times.

The same applies biologically. If just prior to 6,000 years ago there was no life on earth at all, and it was all created rapidly in 6 days, the genetic markers in the genomes of all species should show a bottleneck occurring at that time. They don't.

The entire earth's surface in Genesis 1:2 was being washed over with raging water. A great deal of that water dissappeared suddenly as God separated land from water. Interesting to find that oil is decayed biological matter. Right? And, add to that, what appears to be sea water if found on the top layer of buried oil.

As I see it. Much of the last surface creation was suspended in this raging water and when God separated the land from water, had the debris sucked below the surface of the earth. These were used to create oil deposits man found later on. After all, it has been called "Dino oil" for good reason! The other creations were already imbedded below the surface and this flooding of the entire planet did not wash those away.

So I can understand if modern gap theorists have moved away from suggesting that science supports the theory. That may have appeared to be the case in the early 1800s, but it depended on a superficial view of geology. The more detailed view of geology, and now of genetics, offered by modern science clearly contradicts gap theory as a correct model of the history of life on earth.

Sounds like someone just snapped their fingers and you're hypnotized again back into your old mantra. GAP'ers have not moved away from suggesting that science is supporting the insight. Some who have been taught the insight and only have an academic grasp may seem that way. If anything, the data has led some into even deeper insight of God's Word.

I don't quarrel with the gap interpretation of Gen. 1:2. Its a possibility, maybe a probability. But reading over genez's explanations of gap theory from the bible, I find gap theory tends to build a gigantic and unknowable history on the slender foundation of the correct interpretation of a single word in the bible. I don't think the basis is sufficient to support the super-structure.

That's the YEC's argument. It is not over one word. One word is in question because of what other words make evident. To me, it does not matter if it says the earth "became" wreck and havoc, and with an eerie emptiness. Or, if it says it "was" that way. For if its illustrated for you, you will see why it does not matter.

Now, keep in mind, the Hebrew does indicate a pause in what is being read (this pause is not about the gap itself. It is simply a grammatical tool used in conveying how the Word should be read). Aslo keep in mind, that the Word of God was mostly heard by the ancient believers. They did not have personal Bible's to read for themselves. It was in a setting of teaching by a few to the many. There were sections in Scripture written in am manner for that reason to produce a dramatic effect. Scripture is at times likened to the method of story telling, to be both dramatic and educational at the same time.

Here is why it does not hang on one word. Ilustration:

"In the beginning Henry Ford created the Model T."

(pause indicated in the Hebrew... silence..... now, fade back in)...

"And the Model T was (became) sitting on cinder blocks, all gutted and rusting out."

Either way it was worded? We know that is not the way Mr. Ford created the car to be! It had to "become" that way! Yet, because of the dramatic effect of presenting this section of Scripture as likened to a script as for a play. With the pause, and fade back in, it reveals a gap in time had taken place just the same.

For the reader would have to know that it took time for the car to become that way. So, it can read "became" or! "was", and it will make no difference to what took place! The cause and effect are just the same!

The problem is that Hebrew scholars can be absolute fanatics for the details! Because of this, they can become stubborn and blinded by contradiction to what they find, but fail to look outside the box they just constructed. They can get their eyes locked on one small dot on the map, and not see the big picture.

I believe that was the cause of this great debate. It is not over the big picture. They have been diverted (and blinded) by putting all their concentration on one tiny detail only. For, it does not matter how "hayah" is translated! What the other words show us, reveals there had to be a an unknown gap in time in order to allow for the creation to become as it had.

One more time..... This time with a more positive effect in mind.

"Mary was a born a beautiful child....."

(now there is a dramatic pause.... then a fade back into the present)...

"Now Mary was the model of femine pulchritude, and had every young man in town was panting for a date with her."

As you can see? I chose the word "was." But, because of what we see in the rest of the words? We know that she had to "become" that way!

Such is the reason it does not matter how one translates "hayah" in Genesis 1:2! The context reveals that the earth had to become that way.

God would not have created the world as a chaotic mess with an eerie emptiness about it. It would have not been so dark and dreary as in an old black and white Frankenstein movie. Genesis 1:2 sets a scene of chaos, and dreariness and and empty eerieness. These Hebrew words appear in other parts of Scripture always to reveal eeirieness or a destruction by judgement.

Think of the black and white pictures of the dark images of Hiroshima taken after the atomic blast. Depressing and frightening! God did not create the world that way. And, Henry Ford did not create his Model T sitting on cinder blocks, all rusted out and falling apart. It had to become that way..... Yet, if we show this in a mood of dramatic effect? We can begin with the beginning, then pause. Next, fade back into the present and declare its present state as, "It was this way." Yet, the hearer would know it had to become that way. How it did become that way took place during the unmentioned time that took place during the pause.

Movies use this effect all the time! They start in a scene of the past, then fade into the present condition. What took place in the interval is not shown, but implicitly understood by the viewer.

" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

.....Pause here. Its indicated in the Hebrew.

Now, fade back in......


"Now the earth was desolate, chaotic and eerily empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering (warming) over the waters."

For example, do you agree with genez that the purpose of different creations was to instruct angels? Where, in scripture does that idea come from?

That was my insight. It will take some work to explain. But, first things first. We first need to be able to see that there was a gap in time, and something terrible took place during that interval. That God did not create the world this way in the beginning.

Job 38:4-7 niv

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.


Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone- while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy? "

What we find in Genesis 1:2, is hardly reason to break out in song and joy! The original creation (which was in the beginning) was glorious and wonderful!


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[nephilimiyr]

Great. I am glad to have a second person who subscribes to gap theory in the conversation. I expect that like most theories everyone brings a personal perspective that is a little different.

That's true, but my perspective is not as detailed and defined as genez's though. I hold to a basic belief in the "gap" and since I have come to this belief I have left it alone. I don't believe my belief in origins(or however it should be discribed as) is as important as learning how to continue to die to myself and live for Christ. I believe I have come to the truth in this matter and have moved on.

To be perfectly honest, I saw that genez was posting here and I always like to read what he has to say, especially when I know we agree with each other.

It is not so much explaining the geological record as being consistent with it. I realize gap theory was created from studying the bible long before we had any inkling of the age of the earth, so it was not developed in order to explain the geologic record.

Thank you for that. We gappers usually get that from the YEKs though who for some reason want to claim this is a whole new theory. It isn't.

But it does seem to me that in the 19th century, gap theorists appropriated the geological discovery of the antiquity of the earth as a scientific validation that they were on the right track as compared to young earth theories. So while geologic evidence would not be necessary, it was seen as providing a welcome additional support.

Now that is what I gleaned from a very brief investigation of gap theory nearly 30 years ago. Things may have changed since then.

LOL, do you you realize that you did what you accuse people who don't believe in evolution do. Interesting. You say you had a very brief investigation of the gap nearly 30 years ago but it seems to me you have written it off completely without any real good understanding of it.

Yes, as noted above, that has been my understanding.

And you will find, if I stick around long enough, that many of us don't do this. It's viewed by me as unecessary.

If the gap was an actual occurrence in the history of the earth, the gap theorist does need to know when it occurred and how long it lasted and when it ended. A global destruction of the sort envisaged by gap theory could not fail to leave its mark in the geologic record, just as the meteor impact of 65 million years ago left a global record of iridium in the earth.

Who's to say that God has to create or to reform in a way that is understandable to you? You basically say that the evidence must be there but you're the one saying that, not God. We know God has made mysteries of many things only to find out that He reveals those mysteries at a time when He feels fit.

I am convinced that God isn't concerned about our understanding of His creative power as much as He is concerned with whether we will trust in Him. He wants us to learn how to have complete dependence upon Him and to submit to His will. His dealings with us now are to the end that He may withdraw us from our own purpose, and hide pride from us.

Job 3:17, That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.

If one cannot identify the occurrence of the gap geologically, the only rational explanation is that it did not happen in history.

That would be putting God and how He creates into a box by saying God had to do it this way and since you don't see it being done in that way then those things are false.

You forget that the gap theory doesn't give dates and times. The gap theory doesn't do this because the word of God doesn't do this. You mentioned a meteor that happend over 65 million years ago. Could this be what made the earth formless and void? I don't know, I suppose it could be but why should I speculate?

You want the gap theory to give you dates and times and events but the gap theory doesn't operate in a science, it operates in interpretation. You want the earth to tell you that the gap theory is true through evidence? Just remember one thing, when God reformed the earth in Genesis 1 He reformed it in a perfect state. You say God had to leave the evidence of destruction, the evidence of it having been formless and void, I say no He doesn't...if He wants to hide some of that evidence and yet reveal some of that evidence then that is His prerogative, I'm more than sure He has His reasons.

The same applies biologically. If just prior to 6,000 years ago there was no life on earth at all, and it was all created rapidly in 6 days, the genetic markers in the genomes of all species should show a bottleneck occurring at that time. They don't.

While scientists differ somewhat on the occasion of the last bottleneck in human history, none suggests a date more recent than 70,000 years ago. Furthermore, there is no simultaneous bottleneck in all species since the mass extinction of 65 million years ago.

I can't argue these things with you because I don't know, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

So I can understand if modern gap theorists have moved away from suggesting that science supports the theory. That may have appeared to be the case in the early 1800s, but it depended on a superficial view of geology. The more detailed view of geology, and now of genetics, offered by modern science clearly contradicts gap theory as a correct model of the history of life on earth.

Interesting, G.H. Pember wrote his book on the gap theory back in 1876 called Earth's Earliest Ages and never attempted to prove it by scientific evidence's.

I don't quarrel with the gap interpretation of Gen. 1:2. Its a possibility, maybe a probability. But reading over genez's explanations of gap theory from the bible, I find gap theory tends to build a gigantic and unknowable history on the slender foundation of the correct interpretation of a single word in the bible. I don't think the basis is sufficient to support the super-structure.

For example, do you agree with genez that the purpose of different creations was to instruct angels? Where, in scripture does that idea come from?

That would be one of the areas in this where genez and I disagree.

 

[nephilimiyr]

The original Gap folks had no axe to grind. It was seen as being evident from what the Scripture teaches. It was not created as a means to counter Darwin as YEC's always scream as they hold their ears being told that is not so.

LOL, yes that's true. I remember getting in some debates here where no matter what I said or no matter what link I post that proved the oposite as being true they still wanted to accuse me and other gappers as "wanting the best of both worlds". To be fair I also heard this from TEs, though not as much.

Again, the insight they saw into God's Word shows that at that time no religious bias was driving them to force them to see this existence of prior creation. YEC's have been screaming its only a recent theory. Keep that in mind. Because of that it gets rejected by Christians who believe what they are told without checking it out for themselves.

I admitt that when I first heard of the gap theory I sort of thought the same thing. Growing up in the RCC I was taught that God created in 6 days everything that we see. When I got into high school and learned about evolution I became quite confused. I found myself having to chose either between having faith that God created everything in the way I was taught or that there was no God and everything came about by chance. When I first heard about the gap theory I was like "cool, someone came up with a good arguement for both evolution and the 6 day creation story" but I didn't investigate it any further as they were only footnotes in a Bible I had at the time.

It wasn't till years later when I was reading a book on a subject that really had nothing to do with origins but one chapter was on an explanation of the gap theory. I was overwhelmed with this journey into truth. It was so convincing that I began to study it. The more I studied, the more I understood that this wasn't a new theory at all but quite old, in fact older than the traditional 6 day creation story.

GAP'ers have not moved away from suggesting that science is supporting the insight. Some who have been taught the insight and only have an academic grasp may seem that way. If anything, the data has led some into even deeper insight of God's Word.

I agree and I would be one of those people.

Here is why it does not hang on one word. Ilustration:

"In the beginning Henry Ford created the Model T."

(pause indicated in the Hebrew... silence..... now, fade back in)...

"And the Model T was (became) sitting on cinder blocks, all gutted and rusting out."

Either way it was worded? We know that is not the way Mr. Ford created the car to be! It had to "become" that way! Yet, because of the dramatic effect of presenting this section of Scripture as likened to a script as for a play. With the pause, and fade back in, it reveals a gap in time had taken place just the same.

For the reader would have to know that it took time for the car to become that way. So, it can read "became" or! "was", and it will make no difference to what took place! The cause and effect are just the same!

The problem is that Hebrew scholars can be absolute fanatics for the details! Because of this, they can become stubborn and blinded by contradiction to what they find, but fail to look outside the box they just constructed. They can get their eyes locked on one small dot on the map, and not see the big picture.

I believe that was the cause of this great debate. It is not over the big picture. They have been diverted (and blinded) by putting all their concentration on one tiny detail only. For, it does not matter how "hayah" is translated! What the other words show us, reveals there had to be a an unknown gap in time in order to allow for the creation to become as it had.

I agree. You have used this anology before and it's an oldie but goodie.
By the way, did you know Henry Ford was once quoted as saying "History is more or less bunk"? I consider that a very wise statement.

But I think gluadys was more objecting to your idea of what the purpose of God was and the angels then a basic belief in the gap. She says that in scripture she could see the gap theory as a possibility but not what you're saying about the angels and God's purpose.

 

[gluadys]

I am the average person and I do think like that.

Good. I was really reacting to the implication that scientists don't think like that when they very much do.

Science was always my least favorite subject in school and remains so even now.

Funnily enough it was my least favorite too, especially chemistry. I might never have learned anything about evolution if the university had not insisted that arts students take at least one science course. I decided studying living things would be more interesting than studying rocks do I opted for biology over geology. Everything else I have learned in science has been through self-teaching over the last 10-15 years when the evolution controversy and my concern for good education motivated me to learn it. Now I'm hooked.

Here's my understanding of theory. Scientists have many evidence's before them in which they hypothesize; assume or suppose. They then form a hypothesis; they form a supposition, a foundation to work with. When they have formulated enough evidence to support their suppositions through observing experiments in a working hypothesis they have then created a theory.

That is quite different from how science actually works. Three important concepts you have left out are model, prediction and falsification.

What scientists do to begin with is to frame a question about a natural event or process. They study all the available evidence on that topic, and from what we already know they try to construct a theoretical model of what is happening in nature. (The model is not necessarily 3-dimensional, it may be purely mathematical.) The model is basically the best scientific guess at what is going on, and seeks not just to imitate the process, but to explain its causes and operations.

Then comes the key step: hypothesis and prediction.

This is an "if-then" statement.

"If our hypothetical model is a correct representation of nature,
then in nature we must be able to observe X."

There are a number of conditions about scientific predictions that must be adhered to.

First X must be at least theoretically observable. If X by definition, cannot be observed, the model cannot be tested. In some cases advances in technology may be needed before X can be observed, so a test would have to be postponed until such technology exists. Until then, the model is only hypothetical.
Second, X must be necessary. It is an observation that flows from the model as a necessity. It is not good enough that we MAY observe X if the model is correct. Testing for an observation that may or may not be a consequence of a natural process doesn't tell whether the model is right or wrong.
Third, X must be unique to this model. It cannot be an observation common to several hypothetical models. If it were, there would be no way to tell which model is correct.
Finally, it must be possible that X does not exist. This is sometimes stated as "A scientific hypothesis must be risky". Predicting something that must exist in all cases doesn't tell us whether the model we are testing is true or not. A scientist has to take the risk that a test of the hypothetical model will show it is false.

Which brings us to falsification. Scientists actually never try to prove theories, because theories in principle are not provable. We never have all the evidence so we can never have total confidence that a theory will not be thrown into question by new evidence.

However, we can have evidence that shows a theory is false. So the aim of scientific work is to show what theories are false, not to show what theories are true.

So, the scientist now tests her model against nature by looking for X, because her model shows that if nature really works like she thinks it does, she must be able to observe X. If the results are negative, she knows the model is incorrect and she sets out to revise it, or, if necessary, starts to work on a new model. If the results are positive, she develops another prediction and tries again to show that the model is false.

If, after many predictions and many tests, not one has falsified the model, scientists start according the model together with all the positive results of its testing the status of a theory. Since positive results are derived from nature, they constitute evidence in favour of the theory, although they never constitute absolute truth. Still the more positive evidence there is, the more likely the theory is to be true, to the extent that, in the words of Stephen J.Gould, it would be perverse not to accept provisionally that it is true and work on that basis.

With that being said, I have to believe that since we're only talking about less than 1% of the data we are makeing a guess about the other 99%.

Not really. Science works with available evidence. It may predict evidence which has not been observed yet. Darwin once famously predicted the existence of a moth in Madagascar with a nectar-sucking proboscis 10" long. Other biologists of the time scoffed---until it was found. Another famous example is cosmic background radiation. Big bang theory was proposed as early as the 1930s, but did not gain full scientific acceptance until the 1970s. Cosmic background radiation is a necessary consequence of big bang theory and only of big bang theory, and scientists were setting up an experiment to search for it, when it was accidentally discovered by a couple of radio engineers. But where there is neither actual nor predicted evidence, science does not really attempt to explain things. Or it recognizes that such attempts are speculation which science in its current form cannot test.

and because I believe God contradicts the theory of evolution

And that is where we disagree. I believe truth can never contradict God's word because God's word is truth. So since evolution is true, it must be God's word. If my reading of scripture suggests otherwise, something is amiss in the way I am reading scripture. I would never assume that my way of reading scripture is the right way of reading scripture.

I do believe in evolutionary processes. Micro evolution is fact to me and is apart of that less than 1% that we do know but macro evolution is a guess that I believe the other 99% of knowledge will show to be false.

This only shows that you are (as you admit) not knowledgeable about the science of evolution. Since micro-evolution exists, macro-evolution is inevitable. There is considerable positive evidence for macro-evolution and no falsification of it. Science considers speciation to be macro-evolution and speciation has been observed. So technically we have actually observed macro-evolution and even created it in laboratory conditions.

 

[gluadys]

A meteor so huge as to effect the entire planet? And they can not find the meteor? Any theories of what became of such a huge meteor?

Yes. http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/extinction/Asteroid.html

The meteor probably broke up on impact and the bits and pieces have eroded away. You can get a lot of erosion in 65 million years. But as you can see from the link, they have found the impact crater. And they can deduce from the crater the size of the meterorite and the force of the impact. This, in turn leads to estimates of how much dust and debris was raised and the consequent effects on climate. These estimates in turn can be checked out by further geological studies.

The Bible leaves it as being prehistoric.

"Pre-historic" is only relative to human history. There is no "pre-history" in earth history. And in all the 4.5 years there is no gap of the sort you describe. Your description would be apt for the very early earth, before any life existed, say 4.5 to 4.0 billion years ago. But earth history does not show any repetition of such conditions in the last 3.8 billion years i.e since the beginning of the fossil record.

The entire earth's surface in Genesis 1:2 was being washed over with raging water. A great deal of that water dissappeared suddenly as God separated land from water.

Oh? Where to?

Interesting to find that oil is decayed biological matter. Right? And, add to that, what appears to be sea water if found on the top layer of buried oil.

As I see it. Much of the last surface creation was suspended in this raging water and when God separated the land from water, had the debris sucked below the surface of the earth. These were used to create oil deposits man found later on. After all, it has been called "Dino oil" for good reason! The other creations were already imbedded below the surface and this flooding of the entire planet did not wash those away.

This is just making stuff up in your head. It's fine to have a great imagination, but just because you do is no evidence things really happened that way. To find what really happened you need to do more than invent a good story.

Sounds like someone just snapped their fingers and you're hypnotized again back into your old mantra. GAP'ers have not moved away from suggesting that science is supporting the insight.

Sounds like nephilimiyr would disagree with you on that point.

Some who have been taught the insight and only have an academic grasp may seem that way. If anything, the data has led some into even deeper insight of God's Word.

If so, they have abandoned gap theology since the physical data squarely contradicts the historical occurrence of any such gap.

Such is the reason it does not matter how one translates "hayah" in Genesis 1:2! The context reveals that the earth had to become that way.

Ok, it's not over one word or one translation. But it is still a matter of interpretation.

God would not have created the world as a chaotic mess with an eerie emptiness about it.

I don't know why not. I don't know of any reason the initial stage of creation would not be chaotic. It seems you are building your case on a personal assumption about how God would create.

We first need to be able to see that there was a gap in time, and something terrible took place during that interval. That God did not create the world this way in the beginning.

Scientifically we know there was no gap. Scripturally it is a matter of intepretation.

What we find in Genesis 1:2, is hardly reason to break out in song and joy! The original creation (which was in the beginning) was glorious and wonderful!

Why not? Even chaos is wonderful in comparison to nothing.

 

[gluadys]

I don't believe my belief in origins(or however it should be discribed as) is as important as learning how to continue to die to myself and live for Christ. I believe I have come to the truth in this matter and have moved on.

Amen! Though I disagree that you have come to truth in this matter, I can certainly agree with the rest.

LOL, do you you realize that you did what you accuse people who don't believe in evolution do.

No, I am not following you here.

Interesting. You say you had a very brief investigation of the gap nearly 30 years ago but it seems to me you have written it off completely without any real good understanding of it.

Well I didn't actually write it off then. It was presented then as a way to reconcile scripture with geology--just as day-age theology tries to in another way. But I had no interest in science at the time, nor in scripture-science reconciliations. I was glad to know some people had looked into it, but not sufficiently interested to follow up myself.

When I did develop an interest in evolution and studied more about science and theology, my conclusion was that every creationist scenario--young earth, day-age or gap--was falsified by the scientific evidence.

Who's to say that God has to create or to reform in a way that is understandable to you?

God can create in any way God wants and doesn't have to let his methods be understandable. However, the God presented to us in scripture and Christian belief is a god of a certain character. From God's character we can conclude there are some things God will not do even if he can.

You basically say that the evidence must be there but you're the one saying that, not God.

When God acts on physical matter there are physical consequences. If God's action is significant enough, the physical consequences should be observable. The sort of global destruction gap theology proposes would be an action of such significance that there should be observable geologic and paleontologic evidence of it, as well as evidence in ice cores, varves, dendrochronology and genetic markers.

I am convinced that God isn't concerned about our understanding of His creative power as much as He is concerned with whether we will trust in Him.

I agree. That is a reason for accepting evolution and rejecting gap theology. I trust in the word of God as it has been revealed in the work of God. I trust that scripture does not contradict the testimony of the work of Gods' own hands.

That would be putting God and how He creates into a box by saying God had to do it this way and since you don't see it being done in that way then those things are false.

No, God can create (and re-create) as he chooses, and destroy as he chooses. But whatever he chooses will leave evidence of what his choice was. If the evidence says: "This is not how God did it." that is not putting God in a box. It is just ruling out a human speculation on how God might have done it. If God had created or destroyed differently, the evidence would be different.

You forget that the gap theory doesn't give dates and times.

Gap theologians do though. Genez has stated the last re-creation took place a little over 6,000 years ago and the creation before that included humans of some sort. That sets the gap within the last 2 million years, assuming that the most primitive of the human species counts as human.

The gap theory doesn't do this because the word of God doesn't do this. You mentioned a meteor that happend over 65 million years ago.
Could this be what made the earth formless and void? I don't know, I suppose it could be but why should I speculate?

In some respects, yes. Check the link in my reply to genez. The description of earth in the months after the meteorite impact are much like genez' description of the earth in its desolate phase.

There are some differences though:
-the earth was not formless--it was a sphere both before and after the impact.
-the earth was not totally empty--although many species of plants and animals became extinct, not all did. Life continued though the "gap".
-no humans of any sort were alive at the time. In fact, no large mammals of any sort were alive at the time.

You want the gap theory to give you dates and times and events but the gap theory doesn't operate in a science, it operates in interpretation.

And that is precisely my problem with it. It is all interpretation. There is nothing to distinguish it from other interpretations. Interpretations are subjective. Unless there is a means to ground an interpretation in something objective, no one interpretation can be ruled out. YEC, OEC Day-Age, Gap, TE are all interpretations, and one is as good as the other as long as they remain interpretations of scripture.

But if an adherent of any of these interpretations wants to defend the thesis that her pet interpretation is what actually happened in history, then historical evidence must be called to witness. And the objective evidence of earth history rules out the first three interpretations.

You want the earth to tell you that the gap theory is true through evidence?

That depends on your claim. Genez claims scientific data support gap theology. He is wrong. It contradicts gap theology--especially if dated as he suggests.

If your claim is limited to "Gap theology provides a rational way to read the bible" I have no problem with that. I disagree, but that is a different story. But as soon as you want to assert that it is not just an interpretation of scripture, but refers to actual historical events, that claim must be judged against the historical evidence.

Just remember one thing, when God reformed the earth in Genesis 1 He reformed it in a perfect state. You say God had to leave the evidence of destruction, the evidence of it having been formless and void, I say no He doesn't...if He wants to hide some of that evidence and yet reveal some of that evidence then that is His prerogative, I'm more than sure He has His reasons.

In short you invoke a miracle to get out of a scientific dilemma.

Interesting, G.H. Pember wrote his book on the gap theory back in 1876 called Earth's Earliest Ages and never attempted to prove it by scientific evidence's.

He was smart. The only way to give credibility of a sort to gap theology is to avoid scientific evidence like the plague.

That would be one of the areas in this where genez and I disagree.

ok.

 

[nephilimiyr]

And that is where we disagree. I believe truth can never contradict God's word because God's word is truth. So since evolution is true, it must be God's word. If my reading of scripture suggests otherwise, something is amiss in the way I am reading scripture. I would never assume that my way of reading scripture is the right way of reading scripture.

This only shows that you are (as you admit) not knowledgeable about the science of evolution. Since micro-evolution exists, macro-evolution is inevitable. There is considerable positive evidence for macro-evolution and no falsification of it. Science considers speciation to be macro-evolution and speciation has been observed. So technically we have actually observed macro-evolution and even created it in laboratory conditions.

Very well done! Although my understanding of science is limited, it isn't as limited as I made it look. I just wanted to keep my understanding of what a theory was down to a 3 sentence paragraph when actually I could've made it 6 or 7...

You odviously know what you're talking about, I never doubted that for a second. However, when it comes to evolution I don't think it is as simple and clear cut as you make it out to be. For instance I reject the idea of macro evolution because I don't believe it has ever been observed in laboratory conditions or in the fossil record. And Believeing something is fact because you expect it to happen is not good enough for me.

It all comes down to the so-called missing link that was promised to us back in the 1800s. Have we ever found one? Since the evolutionary development of animals currently on this earth would dictate many, many transitional animals from one "branch" to the current top of the branch that are now seen, one might reasonably expect the number of what is known as intermediate transitional fossils to outnumber those of extinct animals as well as those currently alive. Instead, we have been given no missing linkor intermediate fossils of animals that were in the process of developing from one type of animal to another.

I read this in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Dr. Duane T. Gish. This book was hard reading for me but it systematically demonstrates the complete absence of missing links in the fossil record. It also discusses recapitulation, the origin of man, living fossils, alleged transitional species, punctuated equilibrium, and many othe points that evolutionists hold dear but which aren't supported by the facts. Quite simply, the theory of evolution is built on what scientists want to see, or even what they expect to see, but not on what they do see.

So, according to evolutionists, there should be about 100,000,000 years worth of missing links during the time it took for fish to evolve from mamals invertebrates. Once again, Instead, there are no intermediate fossils, only fully developed fish or fully developed invertebrates. No fossil that looks even remotely like an invertebrate on the road to evolving into a fish has ever been discovered.

Evolutionists also claim it took upwards of 50,000,000 years or more for fish to evolve into amphibians. But again, there are no intermediate transitional fossils. Not a single fossil with part fins, part feet has ever been discovered. That there would be 50,000,000 years of creatures living and dying without a single fossil being produced doesn't tell me that evolution is in observance.

The evidence that you need to show that macro evolution has taken place does not exist. In my book that means it has been falsified. Don't tell me about laboratory experiments because that means nothing to me. I know enough about gene manipulation to know that you can greatly change something into what it was not intended to be and that would not be evolution but plain old manipulation.

And no I would not expect to see macro evolution just because I am able to observe micro evolution. I can observe micro evolution, I can't observe macro. Any belief on macro evolution is just that, it's a belief on what you would expect, not on what you have observed.

 

[nephilimiyr]

No, I am not following you here.

Today I read through this thread...UG...and a few times you had admonished someone for not agreeing with evolution since they haven't studied it in depth or at all. You are saying you don't see the gap theory as being true but you admit that you never studied it but only had a brief investigation of it 30 years ago. If I came on here and told you that evolution was total bunk because 30 years ago I had a brief investigation of it and found it to be untrue what would be your response?

When God acts on physical matter there are physical consequences. If God's action is significant enough, the physical consequences should be observable. The sort of global destruction gap theology proposes would be an action of such significance that there should be observable geologic and paleontologic evidence of it, as well as evidence in ice cores, varves, dendrochronology and genetic markers.

Ok but what does the gap theory say God did after this period of time that the earth was without form and void? The gap theory says God reformed it and Genesis 1 describes this reforming. I don't understand this complication of understanding that if God reformed the earth to it's once perfect state that the imperfect earth would not exist anymore. What was broken, He fixed. You expect to see scars but why? If you saw scars then God's handy work wouldn't be all that handy would it? If you will only believe in the gap theory if scars are in evidence then that is you placeing demands on God that He does things in a way that you can understand it logically but God doesn't work like that. His pruposes are #1, our purposes are not important to Him, infact he calls them foolishness. Remember the Job 33:17 passage?

I agree. That is a reason for accepting evolution and rejecting gap theology. I trust in the word of God as it has been revealed in the work of God. I trust that scripture does not contradict the testimony of the work of Gods' own hands.

LOL, well that was sweet...I'll let you have your moment, I probably had it comin.

Gap theologians do though.

Yeah I guess some do but I don't believe they should.

And that is precisely my problem with it. It is all interpretation.

Ok, if you have problems with it, that's alright, that's cool.

If your claim is limited to "Gap theology provides a rational way to read the bible" I have no problem with that. I disagree, but that is a different story. But as soon as you want to assert that it is not just an interpretation of scripture, but refers to actual historical events, that claim must be judged against the historical evidence.

Well I do believe the gap theory is accurate historicly but it is very, very, vague. God does not give us any detail at all in His word when the original creation began and from that point He doesn't give us any kind of idea when the earth became formless and void or even how long it stayed in this state. I do believe however that the 6 days of reformation were actual 6, 24 hour days that happend somewhere in the vicinity of 6,000 years ago. Sorry but that's what I believe.

In short you invoke a miracle to get out of a scientific dilemma.

Would it surprise you at all if I told you I could careless if scientists say I have a dilemma to get out of? In short, you're starting to sound like a YEC!

 

[gluadys]

However, when it comes to evolution I don't think it is as simple and clear cut as you make it out to be.

You bet it isn't! But most errors are about the simple stuff---the basic theory. When people are clear on those, then we can consider the genuine complexities of evolution.

For instance I reject the idea of macro evolution because I don't believe it has ever been observed in laboratory conditions or in the fossil record.

You can believe whatever you want, but when you believe what is contrary to fact the fact doesn't change. Macro-evolution (speciation) has been observed in the wild and produced in the laboratory.

Most people who resist accepting this fact don't accept standard definition of species. What they really want to see is saltation. A change on the magnitude of a dog to a cat. Sorry, evolution will not oblige. Evolution is based on species change and speciation, not on jumping gaps from one family to another. See the Dawkins quote in my sig.

Instead, we have been given no missing linkor intermediate fossils of animals that were in the process of developing from one type of animal to another.

Sure you have. Acanthostega, Archeopteryx, Australopithecus, Pakicetus, Sinornithosaurus, Orohippus, Deinotherium to name only a handful out of thousands of transitional species.

You can give me all the excuses you want, but it simply comes down to not accepting the standard definition of transitional and looking for evidence science doesn't claim to provide.

Quite simply, the theory of evolution is built on what scientists want to see, or even what they expect to see, but not on what they do see.

Of course, Gish wrote his book to convince you of that. But have you ever checked out Gish's assumptions about science against real science? Gish believes atheists understand science and theists don't. I know that from questioning him personally at one of his presentations. Give him a strictly scientific definition of evolution or something related to evolution and a definition that is skewed to support atheism, and he takes the latter to be correct.

So, according to evolutionists, there should be about 100,000,000 years worth of missing links during the time it took for fish to evolve from mamals invertebrates.

No, not according to evolutionists. Only creationists make this claim.

By the way, do you know how many fossils would form in 100,000,000 years? How about the number of fossils that would be eroded away in 100,000,000 years?

Once again, Instead, there are no intermediate fossils, only fully developed fish or fully developed invertebrates. No fossil that looks even remotely like an invertebrate on the road to evolving into a fish has ever been discovered.

Check out conodonts, hemi-chordates and Pikaia. Creationists only get away with this no transitional fossil business because they never show the evidence which does exist. After all it would pretty much blow their case to show you what they claim does not exist.

http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/Cla...s Chordata, Deuterostomes with a spinal chord.

Evolutionists also claim it took upwards of 50,000,000 years or more for fish to evolve into amphibians. But again, there are no intermediate transitional fossils. Not a single fossil with part fins, part feet has ever been discovered.

So you never heard of this guy:

Just one of several tetrapoda which developed fins with fingers and toes while still maintaining a fully aquatic life---their limbs could not support their weight on land.

The evidence that you need to show that macro evolution has taken place does not exist.

What you mean is that you haven't seen it. And you haven't seen it because you haven't looked for it. And you haven't looked for it because you have assumed there is nothing to look for.

Don't tell me about laboratory experiments because that means nothing to me. I know enough about gene manipulation to know that you can greatly change something into what it was not intended to be and that would not be evolution but plain old manipulation.

Actually my favorite example of speciation in the laboratory involved no genetic manipulation at all. All the genetic change occurred in response to environmental changes in the habitat of several different populations of fruit flies. And it occurred without scientists using any genetic engineering or a single dose of radiation. They actually turned one group of fruit flies into carnivores by offering them meat instead of fruit to eat. But no genetic manipulation at all. Only good old-fashioned mutation + natural selection.

And no I would not expect to see macro evolution just because I am able to observe micro evolution.

You should. Macro-evolution is the inevitable outcome of micro-evolution. Unless there is a way of stopping micro-evolution at some point, macro-evolution cannot be avoided. There is no evidence that a natural mechanism exists to prevent a continual accumulation of micro-evolution through time with the consequence being macro-evolution.

Any belief on macro evolution is just that, it's a belief on what you would expect, not on what you have observed.

Given the scientific understanding that speciation is macro-evolution, we have observed it, for we have observed speciation. As for macro-evolution on longer time scales, I may not be able to observe it in my life-time but I can observe evidence that makes no sense whatsoever except as a consequence of macro-evolution.

 

[depthdeception]

You bet it isn't! But most errors are about the simple stuff---the basic theory. When people are clear on those, then we can consider the genuine complexities of evolution.



You can believe whatever you want, but when you believe what is contrary to fact the fact doesn't change. Macro-evolution (speciation) has been observed in the wild and produced in the laboratory.

Most people who resist accepting this fact don't accept standard definition of species. What they really want to see is saltation. A change on the magnitude of a dog to a cat. Sorry, evolution will not oblige. Evolution is based on species change and speciation, not on jumping gaps from one family to another. See the Dawkins quote in my sig.



Sure you have. Acanthostega, Archeopteryx, Australopithecus, Pakicetus, Sinornithosaurus, Orohippus, Deinotherium to name only a handful out of thousands of transitional species.

You can give me all the excuses you want, but it simply comes down to not accepting the standard definition of transitional and looking for evidence science doesn't claim to provide.



Of course, Gish wrote his book to convince you of that. But have you ever checked out Gish's assumptions about science against real science? Gish believes atheists understand science and theists don't. I know that from questioning him personally at one of his presentations. Give him a strictly scientific definition of evolution or something related to evolution and a definition that is skewed to support atheism, and he takes the latter to be correct.




No, not according to evolutionists. Only creationists make this claim.

By the way, do you know how many fossils would form in 100,000,000 years? How about the number of fossils that would be eroded away in 100,000,000 years?



Check out conodonts, hemi-chordates and Pikaia. Creationists only get away with this no transitional fossil business because they never show the evidence which does exist. After all it would pretty much blow their case to show you what they claim does not exist.

http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/Clades.htm#One%20subset%20of%20Deuterostomia%20is%20Chordata,%20Deuterostomes%20with%20a%20spinal%20chord.



So you never heard of this guy:

Just one of several tetrapoda which developed fins with fingers and toes while still maintaining a fully aquatic life---their limbs could not support their weight on land.




What you mean is that you haven't seen it. And you haven't seen it because you haven't looked for it. And you haven't looked for it because you have assumed there is nothing to look for.



Actually my favorite example of speciation in the laboratory involved no genetic manipulation at all. All the genetic change occurred in response to environmental changes in the habitat of several different populations of fruit flies. And it occurred without scientists using any genetic engineering or a single dose of radiation. They actually turned one group of fruit flies into carnivores by offering them meat instead of fruit to eat. But no genetic manipulation at all. Only good old-fashioned mutation + natural selection.



You should. Macro-evolution is the inevitable outcome of micro-evolution. Unless there is a way of stopping micro-evolution at some point, macro-evolution cannot be avoided. There is no evidence that a natural mechanism exists to prevent a continual accumulation of micro-evolution through time with the consequence being macro-evolution.



Given the scientific understanding that speciation is macro-evolution, we have observed it, for we have observed speciation. As for macro-evolution on longer time scales, I may not be able to observe it in my life-time but I can observe evidence that makes no sense whatsoever except as a consequence of macro-evolution.

Argghh!! I wish I could give you a million reps for your informative and thoughtful posts!!

 

[gluadys]

Today I read through this thread...UG...and a few times you had admonished someone for not agreeing with evolution since they haven't studied it in depth or at all. You are saying you don't see the gap theory as being true but you admit that you never studied it but only had a brief investigation of it 30 years ago. If I came on here and told you that evolution was total bunk because 30 years ago I had a brief investigation of it and found it to be untrue what would be your response?

That's why I asked genez to tell me more about it. So now I am speaking from a better base of understanding.

Ok but what does the gap theory say God did after this period of time that the earth was without form and void? The gap theory says God reformed it and Genesis 1 describes this reforming. I don't understand this complication of understanding that if God reformed the earth to it's once perfect state that the imperfect earth would not exist anymore. What was broken, He fixed. You expect to see scars but why?

Because if there was any complete break in the existence of life on earth, there had to be a break in the sequence of reproduction from generation to generation. That would have to show up as a bottleneck in the DNA sequences of current species. Furthermore, all current species would have to show a genetic bottleneck at the same period of history. Actual genetic markers completely disagree with this scenario.

If you saw scars then God's handy work wouldn't be all that handy would it?

If God destroyed his handiwork, yes, I would expect to see evidence of the destruction. It is an event in geological history that would have to leave evidence. The new creation after all would have to be built on top of the one that was destroyed, so if you find rock from the period of destruction, the fact of destruction should be evident in it. Just as the reconstruction of Jericho--again and again--eleven times over IIRC--did not undo the destruction of the previous city or destroy the evidence of the destruction. Remember that at least some gap theologians do say that the long time sequences of earth's history represent time during and before the gap. So unless the evidence is magicked away, it has to be there.

Well I do believe the gap theory is accurate historicly but it is very, very, vague.

Then you have a problem. Because no matter how vague the scripture, it should still be possible to pinpoint the time of the gap geologically. You are basically in the same position here as flood theologians. No flood was ever global according to geologic records.

I do believe however that the 6 days of reformation were actual 6, 24 hour days that happend somewhere in the vicinity of 6,000 years ago. Sorry but that's what I believe.

As I said, believing something contradicted by the facts does not change the facts. If you are comfortable with that position, that is up to you.

Would it surprise you at all if I told you I could careless if scientists say I have a dilemma to get out of? In short, you're starting to sound like a YEC!

LOL! Another reason I have never given gap theory much thought before is that it always struck me as being essetially YECism. Genez' position and yours on the time of reformation give me ample reason to continue to classify gap theology as a variation of YEC.

Both you and YECists place the creation of everything we are familiar with just 6,000 years ago. You don't as YECists do, try to shoe-horn long extinct species into that time frame, but otherwise, all the reasons not to accept YECism apply just as strongly to gap theology.

 

[GenemZ]

But I think gluadys was more objecting to your idea of what the purpose of God was and the angels then a basic belief in the gap. She says that in scripture she could see the gap theory as a possibility but not what you're saying about the angels and God's purpose.

Jesus said something that is simple truth....

John 3:11-12 niv
"I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"

What I have to say about angels I believe will be impossible to accept if the other one is still not able to accept the gap theory, and still insists evolution is the means to how we got this present creation. So, I hold that for another time. First things first.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[sawdust]

The geologic record does show times of global catastrophe and mass extinction -- five in all with the sixth occurring today. The problem is that it shows no mass extinction which completely wiped out all life on earth. One (snowball earth) destroyed 98% of all species living at the time, but 2% survived into the next non-catastrophic period.

I have some questions if you don't mind.

How would science know if the 2% is the survival of a past creation or if God recreated 2% of what used to exist?

A global destruction of the sort envisaged by gap theory could not fail to leave its mark in the geologic record, just as the meteor impact of 65 million years ago left a global record of iridium in the earth.

What if it did but God broke it up when He recreated. Would science know if it was "strewn about"? (a bit here, a bit there so to speak)

You might have already answered these. I'm still trying to catch up on the reading. Feel free to ignore if you have covered them.

peace

 

[GenemZ]

And that is where we disagree. I believe truth can never contradict God's word because God's word is truth. So since evolution is true, it must be God's word.

Genesis 2:7 niv
"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

The Lord also created separately the chimp man is supposed to have evolved from.

Genesis 2:19a niv
"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air."

If my reading of scripture suggests otherwise, something is amiss in the way I am reading scripture. I would never assume that my way of reading scripture is the right way of reading scripture.

Those pasaages do not give you much wriggle room. You must assume that those passages are lies if evolution, as you know it to be, is truth.

This only shows that you are (as you admit) not knowledgeable about the science of evolution. Since micro-evolution exists, macro-evolution is inevitable. There is considerable positive evidence for macro-evolution and no falsification of it. Science considers speciation to be macro-evolution and speciation has been observed. So technically we have actually observed macro-evolution and even created it in laboratory conditions.

A new species of cow may eventually come from a species of cow that anteceded the new. But, that cow will not become a firefly, nor a bat.

Evolution has to face the reality that all ultra complex creatures that have eyes, livers, hearts, arteries, lungs, bowels, stomachs, bones, etc... all had to start with one common ancestor with all those traits. Then branched out in a million directions, But species fail to make such leaps as we see them today. I see that as a glaring inconsistency in the possibility that life began as the result of evolution. What God created can evolve... But, a cow remains a cow.

And, I might add. The understanding that the earth is only about 6,000 years old was deducted from what is found in genealogies in the Bible. What the man who determined this date failed to know at the time, was that genealogies often times skipped many generations , and named mostly the more important names. Some estimate that this current creation is closer to 10,000 - 30,000 years old. But, since we can not know exactly how man names were missing, it can not be determined with certainty. And, realize, that when you leave out a few names when men lived to be 500 years old, the years can rack up quite easily.

Example... Jesus was referred to as the "son of David." Yet, David and Jesus were many centuries apart. In that sense we find certain listings being made in genealogies back then.

This current creation was not 6000 years old.

And, while we are on the subject of debunking traditionally held beliefs. Noah's flood did not cover the entire planet. For, there was no need for a universal flood in Noah's day.

The sole purpose of the flood was to destroy mankind. Not, the entire planet. Mankind was in his infancy. Most likley he covered a patch of earth which was no bigger than New York City. But, that's another post.

Just the same it explains why one not find evidence of that flood. And by only needing to save the animals which were indigenous to man's known world, it explains why all those animals were able to fit on the Ark.

As for explaining why the past creations were teaching tools for angels? That must be put on the back burner for now. There are too many hurdles that first need to be overcome before that can be presented objectively.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[nephilimiyr]

As I said, believing something contradicted by the facts does not change the facts. If you are comfortable with that position, that is up to you.

I am.

LOL! Another reason I have never given gap theory much thought before is that it always struck me as being essetially YECism. Genez' position and yours on the time of reformation give me ample reason to continue to classify gap theology as a variation of YEC.

Both you and YECists place the creation of everything we are familiar with just 6,000 years ago. You don't as YECists do, try to shoe-horn long extinct species into that time frame, but otherwise, all the reasons not to accept YECism apply just as strongly to gap theology.

And if you're comfortable with that position, that is up to you.

I would very much like to thank you for this good hearted discussion. It's been awhile and I have enjoyed it and as always have learned a little on the side.

If you don't mind, I now need to get back to discussing what really matters to me.

Take care!