GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[Jazer]

It is obvious that this scene is quite different from the time before mountains were made, or land and water even separated, or man or beast made.

I am GAP, that is a ruin restoration theory. If you want to know about when the mountains were made then that would be OEC or Day Age Creationism. GAP believe that a day in Genesis is 1000 years. Based on what Moses said in the Psalms and also what Peter said about how a day with the Lord is 1000 years. Dispensationalists believe also believe a day is 1000 years. The church age being two days and the 1000 year reign of Christ being the final and last day of God's plan of restoration.

 

[lucaspa]

That was a quote from a Talk Origins article: "by 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly creationist geologists. The relative order of the strata was first determined by the principles of stratification. (The principle of superposition was recognized as early as 1669 by Steno.) Reverend Benjamin Richardson and Reverend Joseph Townsend were a couple of early geologists involved in this work. By 1830 Lyell's famous textbook, Principles of Geology, came out. The captain of the H.M.S. Beagle, a very strong Bible believer, made it a point to have a copy of Lyell's book for the ship's library. Obviously, even Lyell was not pushing evolution at the time. Such was the age of the great creationist geologists!" How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column

Jazer, do you notice the tense problem you have? Sandwiches asked "Who are these creationists" That is present tense.

You replied with an article that discussed everything in past tense: "Such was the age of the great creationist geologists"

At the time Lyell wrote Principles of Geology, he was a special creationist. That is, he thought God had specially created each species in its present form. So did Darwin. However, the evidence changed both their minds and they realized special creation was falsified and they accepted evolution.

No one today who is a creationist is making any contributions to science. Instead, they are just trying to explain away the data falsifying creationism/supporting evolution.

 

[Jazer]

When you say "the Bible is true" When you say "the Bible is true", you need to clarify that.

Every step of the way we need to clarify that. Right now the issue is Adam in the Bible. My understanding is that in Israel today if you want to immigrate you have to submit a DNA test that shows you have a Hebrew mother. Now we know this is based on mutations. This very same DNA evidence from you perspective would show Theistic Evolution. Adam maybe a recent common ancestor but the J haplogroup goes back more then 6,000 years. Although I am sure that the Adam in the Bible is in there somewhere. Also I am sure that Adam was the beginning of something. This population genetics information is new research that we have only had for 10 years and that means a new understanding of the Bible, because Science has just thrown some new information our way. This is a opportunity for us to understand the Bible better then we were able to understand the Bible before.

Also you have the issue with the Neolithic Revolution. The beginning of farming. The beginning of animal husbandry. Science has a lot to say about this, but also the Bible has a lot to say. The Bible is written history going back 3500 years. Although there are books that go 1000 years more. They have clay tablets going back 4500 years. Old maps showing the farm land people owned. Even tablets to give an account of the animals they had.

Maybe it is to difficult for people to deal with all of this and they would just rather go with the standard dogma that is quick and easy.

Southerners before the Civil War were convinced slavery was good, but is it true?

A slave is based on the mother. The slave owners were having a lot of babies with their female slaves. Usually they were the house maid. The aunt cooking in the kitchen an enduring type in advertising today.

The problem is they were getting more and more white. Some were given their freedom, but the father had a right to sell their own child into slavery if they did not want to set them free. This I think more than anything else was the start of the civil war. Also this son of the free women and son of the slave women is a big theme in the Bible. The Arab nations today are the sons of Abraham and his Egyption handmaid Hagar.

Evolution is not atheism.

If I was a evolutionist I would be even more upset by the atheist who are trying to hijack the theory for their own purpose. How can you say that we have intelligence but intelligence is not a part of the evolutionary process in some way.

It is a strongly supported scientific theory.

Some of it is and some of it is not. You can mix truth and error together and that does not turn the error into truth. Moses and Abraham were called out of the world to separate themselves from the error of their day. They were to abide in the truth. That is why the Bible endures as truth today.

If you are here, Jazer, to argue theism vs atheism, then the worst thing you can do for theism is to make this a creationism vs evolution fight. That fight has already been lost.

Nonsense. GAP is doing just find. Science continues to show that the Bible and Creationism is true.

 

[Jazer]

Jazer, do you notice the tense problem you have? Sandwiches asked "Who are these creationists" That is present tense.

I was just trying to answer his question. I really do not know that much about OEC or day age theory. So I am not really qualified to talk about it. I really only study and do research on the GAP theory. That only covers the last 12,982 years of history.

I still say there is no conflict or contradiction between Science and a Literal understanding of the Bible.

 

[createdtoworship]

I understood that its a general name for a given set of layers. And that these layers change from site to site.
I see it has lots of colors.
And Textures.
And Mystery. "The geologic column only gives us the relative ages of rocks. Rocks simply do not tell us how old they are."
Being that I had to go 3 pages, it seems to be of little significance to geologists.

well there is no place on earth where the entire geologic record exists so how can we say it exists?

 

[Jazer]

well there is no place on earth where the entire geologic record exists so how can we say it exists?

The age of the earth has a lot more to do with the moon moving away from the Earth. When they were on the moon they put some reflectors so they could get a very accurate account of the receding rate of the moon. There is a direct connection between this and the spin down rate of the earth. It may not be consistent. " Tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago show that over hundreds of millions of years the Moon receded at an average rate of 22 millimetres per year and the day lengthened at an average rate of 12 microseconds per year, both about half of their current values." Wiki

In other words Geology is not the only game in town. There are other factors that can be used to determine how old the earth is.

 

[USincognito]

from what I understand they do not use radiometric dating on the geologic column they date the column by the fossils, and then they date the fossils by the column. Thats just the way it's done. According to these texts book in...

You cut and pasted your list from a Creationist website without linking back to the source or providing a citation.

Now, here's the think about spamming walls of "proof texting". Creationists do this stuff all the time, but when science advocates actually take the time and track down the original citation it's either, wrong, fabricated or quote mining. I've got better things to do on-line than track down a bunch of bogus Creationist quotes and I'm sure that applies to others. If you're going to post a wall of proof texts, at least provide the link to your source.

 

[USincognito]

I don't like playing tag with sites, please discuss your arguments with me.

Wow. That's some chuztpah pal. Just a handful of posts after you spam the thread with unsourced, out of context, quote mining from books and articles you youself have never read, you post this? It's even more humorous because this:

here is more evidence against it...

constitutes the only actualy discussion on your part. The rest of the post is stuff you copied and pasted from a Creationist website (though at least you sourced it this time.

A well-known "living fossil" is a fish called coelacanth." It was found fossilized early on and the estimate, or guess, of its age was 300 million years. Later estimates (guesses) reduced the age of this fossil to 150 million years, and still later it was reduced to 75 million years. (Those are enormous differences, of course, and should cause caution on the part of researchers.)

Oh my, such editorializin is not only childish, but wrong. The oldest Coelacanths are around 350 million years old. The most recent fossil species is from around 80 million years ago. "Living fossils" are more accurately described as Lazarus taxa. They were thought to have gone extinct because they were only known from the fossil record. Turns out a population did survive, in this case to the present day.

But, LIVING COELACANTH. HAVE BEEN FOUND IN MADAGASCAR and they are EXACTLY THE SAME as the fossils!

Simply unture. The oldest fossils are placed in the family Latimeriidae in a separate genus from the two living species L. chalumnae and L. menadoensis.
Here's an excellent website that discusses these fascinating critically endangered fish.
DINOFISH.com - COELACANTH: THE FISH OUT OF TIME

 

[USincognito]

That was a quote from a Talk Origins article: "by 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly creationist geologists.

You do realize that what they were doing was searching for evidence of the Flood, right? You do realize that what they found not only was not evidence for the Flood, but for long ages and uniformitarianism, right? You do realize that the geology, studied by these Creationists falsified CreationISM, right?

well there is no place on earth where the entire geologic record exists so how can we say it exists?

There are 32 different locations where the entire geologic column exists in a single basin.
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota
And since you don't like taking links:

"What does all this mean? First, as I have noted before, the concept quite prevalent among some Christians, that the geologic column does not exist, is quite wrong. Morris and Parker (Morris and Parker, 1987, p. 163) write:

"Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence."

They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 31 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco
The Essaouira Basin in Morocco(Broughton and Trepanier, 1993)
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota (Haimla et al, 1990, p. 517)
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia (above this basin sources are Roberston Group, 1989)
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta(Trendall 1990)
The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil( (Wiens, 1995, p. 192)
The Cape Karroo Basin (Tankard, 1995, p. 21)
The Argentina Precordillera Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 136)
The Chilean Antofagosta Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 134)
The Pricaspian Basin (Volozh et al, 2003)"

 

[mzungu]

The door swings both ways. A LOT of science has been discovered because of Creationism.

NO, A lot of science was discovered by CREATIONISTS not CREATIONISM. Big difference. Very big difference. English is not my mother tongue and even I know the difference

The Bible contains absolutely no methodology by which one can conduct any investigations of the physical world nor rules by which one can abide to in order to gain experimental data.

Those creationists used scientific methodology and not creationism in order to find the evidences they sought!

 

[TheReasoner]

Nonsense. GAP is doing just find. Science continues to show that the Bible and Creationism is true.

Untrue. You guys keep repeating that mantra but you cannot show anything to support it.

You say science continues to show the bible and creationism are true. First off, which biblical interpretation would that be? And secondly: Creationism is falsified. Creationism does not describe anything with any accuracy: It is false.



Creationists are very very quick to make extreme claims about 'science'.
However, most of them have no relevant education (i.e. they are not qualified to make the statements they make) and will not pursue acquisition of relevant knowledge either.
Most who do pursue knowledge end up discarding creationism. Or abandon the pursuit. Why is that Jazer. If things were as simple as you guys claim then we should be able to falsify anything challenging creationism with great ease. Instead the opposite happens: Creationism is so clearly false one can quickly and easily discard it as false.
I confronted a guy I know who is pursuing a master's in engineering yet also is a creationist with this fact.
He made bold claims about how easy it was to falsify Big Bang. So I told him as true is that at this juncture he has enough math skills to easily do so if his claims were true. His response: Anger and swearing. Not that this guy is a good person, in fact I'd say the opposite. His general modus operandi is to smear others with whom he does not agree and spread false gossip about them. Not unlike many other creationists, one prominent such was discussed earlier in this thread, as I am sure you recall. You see, this "man" had learned his distasteful behavior from a creationist college where he had taken some letter classes on "apologetics". Wherein he learned to backstab, lie, smear and cheat as much as he could in order to attack evolution. Nothing about the faith in there at all. Now, I - for one - would call such behavior characteristic of bad people. Or, perhaps, of sociopaths. No-one I would care to associate with in any case.

And that's usually what you get from such people. My analysis: Deep down you know you're wrong. Defense mechanisms spring to life to defend your perceptions. And as no legitimate venue can be found it will, much like pressure in a boiler, find a way out any way it can. As logic and reason is denied you by the virtue of your position's inherent lack of these the release valve becomes ad-hominems, straw men, well poisoning, argumentum ad populum and various other logical fallacies. Plus, of course, anger.

I wonder though, why would it be worth defending that which is a lie? Why not be men and abandon the position. After all: It isn't even a part of christianity, it's a fringe belief. It does not have support in God's creation, but goes directly against it. It makes Christianity harder to accept for many many people (damning them, literally). It even conflicts with it's own supposed interpretation, as the bible contradicts itself if read the way you guys do.
Yet you stick to it like flies to a spiderweb. Agitating it by keeping making the same nonsensical claims without any backing over and over again.

 

[dad]

I am GAP, that is a ruin restoration theory. If you want to know about when the mountains were made then that would be OEC or Day Age Creationism. GAP believe that a day in Genesis is 1000 years. Based on what Moses said in the Psalms and also what Peter said about how a day with the Lord is 1000 years. Dispensationalists believe also believe a day is 1000 years. The church age being two days and the 1000 year reign of Christ being the final and last day of God's plan of restoration.

So how long was Jesus dead for?

 

[dad]

That was a quote from a Talk Origins article: "by 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly creationist geologists. The relative order of the strata was first determined by the principles of stratification. (The principle of superposition was recognized as early as 1669 by Steno.) Reverend Benjamin Richardson and Reverend Joseph Townsend were a couple of early geologists involved in this work. By 1830 Lyell's famous textbook, Principles of Geology, came out. The captain of the H.M.S. Beagle, a very strong Bible believer, made it a point to have a copy of Lyell's book for the ship's library. Obviously, even Lyell was not pushing evolution at the time. Such was the age of the great creationist geologists!" How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column

The strata was layed down quickly in a different state environment. Science has nothing it can say about it. Does it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

So how long was Jesus dead for?

Approximately 2,000 years and counting.

 

[lucaspa]

I was just trying to answer his question. I really do not know that much about OEC or day age theory. So I am not really qualified to talk about it. I really only study and do research on the GAP theory. That only covers the last 12,982 years of history.

I still say there is no conflict or contradiction between Science and a Literal understanding of the Bible.

So you think all existing species were specially created about 13,000 years ago when the earth was "re-created"? Do you think the earth was re-created 13,000 years ago? If so, then there is considerable scientific data that contradicts that.

Of course, you aren't using a "Literal understanding" of the Bible. You need a non-literal understanding to get Gap theory to begin with.

What you are trying to do is make Genesis 1-3 somehow by history. It's not. Nor was it ever intended to be. In the process of coming up with this man-made Gap theory, you have lost what God was trying to tell us in Genesis 1-3.

 

[Jazer]

In the process of coming up with this man-made Gap theory, you have lost what God was trying to tell us in Genesis 1-3.

I think you have lost what God is telling us. But that is ok, you believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe and everyone will be just fine. You will catch up over time. Rome was not built in a day. To make this clear, again, I have no problem with Science in general. It is what it is and that does not conflict with the Bible. A day in the Bible is 1000 years. So the Bible begins 12,982 years ago. I use the NASA date of Friday April 13 2029 for the 2000 years anniversary of the Church. Also Nasa's date of Sunday April 13 2036 7 years later. This also lines up with the nanodiamonds. All of these dates line up just fine with Gen Ch 1 vs 2 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Six North American Sites Hold 12,900-Year-Old Nanodiamond-Rich Soil
ScienceDaily (Jan. 2, 2009) — Abundant tiny particles of diamond dust exist in sediments dating to 12,900 years ago at six North American sites, adding strong evidence for Earth's impact with a rare swarm of carbon-and-water-rich comets or carbonaceous chondrites, reports a nine-member scientific team.

99942 Apophis ( /əˈpɒfɪs/, previously known by its provisional designation 2004 MN4) is a near-Earth asteroid that caused a brief period of concern in December 2004 because initial observations indicated a small probability (up to 2.7%) that it would strike the Earth in 2029. Additional observations provided improved predictions that eliminated the possibility of an impact on Earth or the Moon in 2029. However, a possibility remained that during the 2029 close encounter with Earth, Apophis would pass through a gravitational keyhole, a precise region in space no more than about a half-mile wide,[6] that would set up a future impact on April 13, 2036. This possibility kept the asteroid at Level 1 on the Torino impact hazard scale until August 2006, when the probability that Apophis will pass through the keyhole was determined to be very small. Apophis broke the record for the highest level on the Torino Scale, being, for only a short time, a level 4, before it was lowered.[7] Its diameter is approximately 270 meters (885 ft).[2] As of October 7, 2009, the probability of an April 13, 2036 impact is considered to be 1 in 250,000.[3][8]Wiki

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you have lost what God is telling us. But that is ok, you believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe and everyone will be just fine. You will catch up over time. Rome was not built in a day.

Don't you realize, Jazer, that none of us can be tuned in to God like these Internet scientists are, until we first admit that Adam was a mutant, copy-error made in the likeness and image of God?

 

[Jazer]

So you think all existing species were specially created about 13,000 years ago when the earth was "re-created"? Do you think the earth was re-created 13,000 years ago? If so, then there is considerable scientific data that contradicts that.

You know as well as I do what happened 13,000 years ago. The ice melted and the ocean level raised over 300 feet. If you look at the biodiversity of the South Pacific Islands you will find that the biodiversity is based on the lower ice age water level.

In addition to the ice melting and the ocean level rising you also have the holocene extinction. After the Holocene extinction you have the Neolithic Revolution. The beginning of Farming, Cities and Civilization. All of this began with the J J Haplogroup dna in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle east. Then Farming spread to Europe from there. A lot of study has gone into this. None of those studies conflict with the Bible. Again and again science and the Bible agree. They both talk about Jericho being the first city. They both talk about the walls of Jericho. In fact if you go to Jericho today the walls are still sitting on the ground after all these years. It is amazing that no one rebuilt the walls or used the stones to build a house or a fence for the animals or something. They are still sitting there as a ruin after all these years.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Don't you realize, Jazer, that none of us can be tuned in to God like these Internet scientists are, until we first admit that Adam was a mutant, copy-error made in the likeness and image of God?

Right -- because God really wanted you to know about Adam's embedded age -- it's the key to being "tuned in to God."

On the other hand, I could see why God wouldn't try filling your heads with anything too deep or complicated either -- He's wise enough to know your limits, even if you're not.

 

[lucaspa]

Every step of the way we need to clarify that.

But then you do not clarify how you think the Bible is accurate. I asked you some specific questions. Let me put them to you again:
Do you mean that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is true? Do you mean that creationism is true? Or do you mean the Bible is theologically true?

My understanding is that in Israel today if you want to immigrate you have to submit a DNA test that shows you have a Hebrew mother. Now we know this is based on mutations. This very same DNA evidence from you perspective would show Theistic Evolution. Adam maybe a recent common ancestor but the J haplogroup goes back more then 6,000 years. Although I am sure that the Adam in the Bible is in there somewhere. Also I am sure that Adam was the beginning of something.

So you think Genesis 2 is literally true? That is what this paragraph seems to say. A couple of things:
In Genesis 1 God doesn't create a single man. Instead, He creates men and women, both plural in the Hebrew. So in Genesis 1 there is no Adam.

Even if the J halogroup goes back more than 6,000 years, there is nothing in there to say "Adam". So you have no scientific basis for saying "I am sure Adam was the beginning of something."

Also you have the issue with the Neolithic Revolution. The beginning of farming. The beginning of animal husbandry. Science has a lot to say about this, but also the Bible has a lot to say.

So what do you think the Bible has to say about it?

The Bible is written history going back 3500 years.

The Bible as written history goes back only 2500 years. The 1,500 years before that are oral history that was finally written down long after the events.

Although there are books that go 1000 years more. They have clay tablets going back 4500 years. Old maps showing the farm land people owned. Even tablets to give an account of the animals they had.

Which is some of the evidence used to support the beginnings of agriculture and animal husbandry. However, remember there are tablets, etc. in 5 other areas of the world that also show an independent beginning of agriculture and husbandry in those areas. It appears that humans in different areas invented agriculture and husbandry at about the same time.

A slave is based on the mother.

You missed the point. Deliberately? I wonder consider how many other points in my post you also missed. Let's review:
You made the claim "People who come here to this board are in general more convinced by Creationism."

I am making the point that "in general more convinced" does not correlate with "true". I stated that clearly when I said "What people are convinced by has nothing to do with whether something is true." I went on by by giving examples of cases where people were convinced of ideas that were not true. One example was the idea that slavery was good. Now, did that conviction correspond to "true"? You never said it did. So, it means that my point stands: even tho more people in this board are convinced of creationism, that does not mean creationism is true.

If I was a evolutionist I would be even more upset by the atheist who are trying to hijack the theory for their own purpose. How can you say that we have intelligence but intelligence is not a part of the evolutionary process in some way.

My statement was "Evolution is not atheism." You seem to agree.

The reason evolutionists are not upset about atheists trying to hijack evolution to back atheism is because they get the theory correct. Creationists attacks evolution. Militant atheists don't. Defending evolution from attacks by creationists takes all the time and effort of theistic evolutionists. There is no time left over to show how Dawkins and PZ Myers are extrapolating beyond the science of evolution to unwarranted belief claims.

If creationists, like you, would stop attacking evolution, we would have time to deal with the situation.

For instance, you claim that "intelligence" is part of the process of evolution. It's not. Evolution produced our intelligence. But natural selection is an unintelligent process to get design. Can God influence evolution? YES. Does God have to influence evolution? NO! Left to itself, as natural selection explores the Library of Mendel, natural selection will eventually produce a sapient species capable of communicating with God. Does that sapient species have to be H. sapiens? NO!

Some of it is and some of it is not.

The 5 central theories of evolution are strongly supported to the point that there is no reason to doubt their truth:
"1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).
3.The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
4.The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution IS. pg 86

All major theories are composed of core statements and what are called "auxiliary hypotheses". The above are the core statements of evolution. An auxiliary hypothesis is that Archeopteryx was on the evolutionary line that led to modern birds. That hypothesis has been called into question in a recent paper in Nature. No matter how that turns out, tho, it will have no effect on the core statements.

Nonsense. GAP is doing just find. Science continues to show that the Bible and Creationism is true.

GAP has never done well, either Biblically or in science. Science has never shown the type of complete recreation that GAP requires. Certainly not one 13,000 years ago. And science has completely falsified the special creation of species that is part of GAP. I have a new thread here on the discovery of a new set of transitional individuals in the evolution of H. sapiens (us). That is more falsification for creationism.

Insisting that GAP and Creationism are true hurts God. It is a guaranteed way to lose the theism vs atheism fight and give the victory to atheism.