Gap Theory

[OldWiseGuy]

But for this to be the case it cannot be in an orbit at all.

Or you have half of the Earth permanently without a Moon in the sky since for it to remain above say N. America in the night permanently then it has to orbit the Earth once a day in lock step with the rotation of N. America thus India never sees the Moon.

If it were in a similiar orbit as the earth, but outside of the earths orbit, and orbited with the earth around the sun, all of the continents would revolve past the moons light each night as the earth revolved. As it is now the moon is a satellite of the earth revolving around it.

 

[KerrMetric]

If it were in a similiar orbit as the earth, but outside of the earths orbit, and orbited with the earth around the sun, all of the continents would revolve past the moons light each night as the earth revolved. As it is now the moon is a satellite of the earth revolving around it.

That is not in orbit around the Earth is it?

Also what you describe cannot occur unless you remove the Moon a long way from the Earth - it wouldn't look much like the Moon then.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

oldwiseguy, your views of perfection seem arbitrary to a lot of us. That's why we are disputing what you are saying. When you ask why we don't want to be a part of "perfection," your question doesn't make a lot of sense to us. Consider the square root of 2. It's an irrational number. Some of us find that particular fact beautiful (especially those of us who enjoy math). But it would be like me saying, "in a perfect world, the square root of 2 would be an integer." It just doesn't make sense. Or why isn't the surface of the Earth totally smooth and level? Some of us appreciate the heights and depths (even those of us who are afraid of heights). But these things that I've mentioned are arbitrary "fixes."

Maybe, then, perfection is not what your hunch tells you.

Here's an example of perfection: Mountains high enough to have snow for those who like snow. Down in the warm valley there would be no snow. Everyone is happy. Using the rationale that even those who don't like snow must endure it for the sake of those who do isn't my idea of perfection. In my world everyone is happy, although the snow lovers will have to travel a bit to get to the snow. Playing in the snow is a lot different than shovelling it, or sliding off the road because of it, or being housebound in a snowstorm.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

oldwiseguy, your views of perfection seem arbitrary to a lot of us. That's why we are disputing what you are saying. When you ask why we don't want to be a part of "perfection," your question doesn't make a lot of sense to us. Consider the square root of 2. It's an irrational number. Some of us find that particular fact beautiful (especially those of us who enjoy math). But it would be like me saying, "in a perfect world, the square root of 2 would be an integer." It just doesn't make sense. Or why isn't the surface of the Earth totally smooth and level? Some of us appreciate the heights and depths (even those of us who are afraid of heights). But these things that I've mentioned are arbitrary "fixes."

Maybe, then, perfection is not what your hunch tells you.

Sorry for the double post. I lost my connection and thought the above post was deleted.

You're taking what I say to extremes. I like the mountains too. But God says he is going to thrash them, and , melt them, in various scriptures. Mountains don't have to be so high they create mudslides on one side and deserts and the other. The Appalations as well as the mountains of New England are just about right. The Rockies, Himalaya's are a bit too high.

Fractional numbers are ok too. But one usually starts a project out with whole numbers, or close to it. I built my porch to be 20 feet by 12 feet. My addition was 24 feet by 12 feet. When I got into the construction I had components of all fractional dimensions. No problem. But I didn't outline my projects with fractional dimensions. The modular 4x8 sheet of plywood attest to this as well.

That's why I believe the earth's orbit was a perfect circle and the axis was 90 degrees to the sun. It is the most probable configuration prior to being disturbed, to my thinking anyway. If you find a book on the floor beneath a bookshelf it is probable that the book came from the shelf, and, that it should be put back on the shelf, thus restoring it to it's perfect position. If the earths orbit and tilt are not correct the closest probable correction, or, restoration, would be as I implied, imo.

 

[KerrMetric]

That's why I believe the earths orbit was a perfect circle and the axis was 90 degrees to the sun. It is the probable configuration prior to being disturbed.

I pointed this out to you once before this cannot be true unless its all superaturally held that way. But then it's not science but an appeal to God directly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I hope you can do a better job of pulling this number out of the Bible than oldwiseguy did.



Don't avoid the question ... how do you know 360 days is "perfect"? Is that in the Bible or is it just a "hunch"?

This is precisely why I didn't want to know your eschatological views. When will the earth be restored and why are the sun and moon going to be there? I hope you are not talking about Revelations 21 and 22?



Angels always appeared on earth in physical manifestations. This does not prove that they have physical bodies - merely that they seem to be able to control matter at will (within the boundaries set by God) in order to communicate with humans.



When did God create a paradise for angels? Is that a hunch, too, or will you have a verse or two to show for it?



E=mc2 ??? Good grief. Don't play around with Einstein if you can't handle him, Newton would be good enough. Pop quiz: What is the momentum of a body with mass m and velocity v, and what is the force exerted upon impact when it strikes another object with impact time t assuming its momentum is zero after impact?



I thought you thought he had a physical body.



And you are going to prove that Scripturally, how?

You know, now I really get how YECs feel when they talk to TEs: that sense that the other side simply doesn't know their Bible. Thanks oldwiseguy for teaching me how to identify with their righteous zeal.

You and other 'scientists' have a compulsion to 'prove' everything, and that's fine for science. You cannot make the bible 'prove' anything. My theories are my speculations about things. Speculation was always accepted in a good natured way. What happened? Why this compulsion to reduce everything to a mathematical formula? Is speculation heresy? Your own theories began with speculation. Lighten up already!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I pointed this out to you once before this cannot be true unless its all superaturally held that way. But then it's not science but an appeal to God directly.

deleted

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I pointed this out to you once before this cannot be true unless its all superaturally held that way. But then it's not science but an appeal to God directly.

Everything is now being upheld by the 'word of God's power'. Tell me that science is not now trying to figure this out, sans God of course.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I pointed this out to you once before this cannot be true unless its all superaturally held that way. But then it's not science but an appeal to God directly.

Deleted. I don't know how I got a triple post.

 

[KerrMetric]

Everything is now being upheld by the 'word of God's power'.

Fine have it there supernaturally. But don't use words like orbit and don't expect gravity to be capable of mathematical description since your proposed model will not conform to science. Just remember this is nothing but a fantasy on your part and really, as such, not worthy of even talking about.

 

[shernren]

You and other 'scientists' have a compulsion to 'prove' everything, and that's fine for science. You cannot make the bible 'prove' anything. My theories are my speculations about things. Speculation was always accepted in a good natured way. What happened? Why this compulsion to reduce everything to a mathematical formula? Is speculation heresy? Your own theories began with speculation. Lighten up already!

19th March 2006, 03:28 PM: Gap, even in unfinish form, kicks butt.

Today, 07:53 AM: Lighten up already!

Why should we have to lighten up on a theory which supposedly "kicks butt"? Theories which kick butt stand up under scrutiny. Theories which don't stand up under scrutiny, don't. Welcome to the real world.

Scrutiny reveals that your "kick-butt" theory is something that the Bible can't prove, that science can't support, and that math can't quantify. And I thought the YECs had it bad. At least they can throw some verses around.

Come back when your theory is really ready to kick some scrutiny-butt anywhere outside your fertile imagination.

 

[Willtor]

Sorry for the double post. I lost my connection and thought the above post was deleted.

You're taking what I say to extremes. I like the mountains too. But God says he is going to thrash them, and , melt them, in various scriptures. Mountains don't have to be so high they create mudslides on one side and deserts and the other. The Appalations as well as the mountains of New England are just about right. The Rockies, Himalaya's are a bit too high.

No! I like the Rockies. My family used to go out West every winter to go skiing in Utah. Also, my mom and brother like mountain climbing. If there were no Himalayas, they'd lose a number of climbing opportunities. I don't think they'd like that. This leads me to the natural question: why is perfection defined in terms of what you like, and not other people?

Fractional numbers are ok too. But one usually starts a project out with whole numbers, or close to it. I built my porch to be 20 feet by 12 feet. My addition was 24 feet by 12 feet. When I got into the construction I had components of all fractional dimensions. No problem. But I didn't outline my projects with fractional dimensions. The modular 4x8 sheet of plywood attest to this as well.

We only do this for simplicity. We have a hard time conceptualizing numbers that are very different from whole numbers. Somehow, I don't think God is bound by the same conceptual limitation.

That's why I believe the earth's orbit was a perfect circle and the axis was 90 degrees to the sun. It is the most probable configuration prior to being disturbed, to my thinking anyway. If you find a book on the floor beneath a bookshelf it is probable that the book came from the shelf, and, that it should be put back on the shelf, thus restoring it to it's perfect position. If the earths orbit and tilt are not correct the closest probable correction, or, restoration, would be as I implied, imo.

Even if I thought this was a good comparison, it's still bound by a human notion of "orderly."

 

[Mallon]

I fully agree with shernren above. You keep bragging about the advantages of your version of Gap theory, oldwiseguy, yet can't objectively defend it when the going gets tough. I'm glad I started this thread so we could shed some light on your "theory."
Case in point:

Do you think that your rhetorical criticism of something that you are totally ignorant of is warranted?

Please answer the question posed by myself and others early in this thread. What makes evolution any more godless/atheistic than the "99 per cent" of other science to which you subscribe? I am not being rhetorical; I am asking a genuine question in the hopes of learning more about your POV. Do you have an answer?

 

[Willtor]

I'd like to make a "me too" post and say that when you argue that TE's will get a good intellectual discussion out of your beliefs, we sort of expect some rigor.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Fine have it there supernaturally. But don't use words like orbit and don't expect gravity to be capable of mathematical description since your proposed model will not conform to science. Just remember this is nothing but a fantasy on your part and really, as such, not worthy of even talking about.

I won't be offended if you ignore my posts.

 

[KerrMetric]

I won't be offended if you ignore my posts.

Fine, just don't use scientific terms in its defence then.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I fully agree with shernren above. You keep bragging about the advantages of your version of Gap theory, oldwiseguy, yet can't objectively defend it when the going gets tough. I'm glad I started this thread so we could shed some light on your "theory."
Case in point:

Please answer the question posed by myself and others early in this thread. What makes evolution any more godless/atheistic than the "99 per cent" of other science to which you subscribe? I am not being rhetorical; I am asking a genuine question in the hopes of learning more about your POV. Do you have an answer?

You have heard my POV expressed by many who cannot accept evolution for various reasons i.e., no evidence, doesn't make sense, etc.

My evidence against evolution is your lack of evidence for it. Science has yet to publicly display one shred of evidence for it. Yet you and others have brought evolution into origins theology. You have been asked for the evidence for decades. How is it that I have to prove that this evidence doesn't exist? I don't want published reports about evidence. I want to SEE the evidence.

 

[Mallon]

My evidence against evolution is your lack of evidence for it. Science has yet to publicly display one shred of evidence for it. Yet you and others have brought evolution into origins theology. You have been asked for the evidence for decades. How is it that I have to prove that this evidence doesn't exist? I don't want published reports about the evidence. I want to SEE the evidence.

You have not answered my question, so I will ask again for the third time: What makes evolution any more godless/atheistic than the other "99 per cent" of science that you subscribe to?

 

[KerrMetric]

My evidence against evolution is your lack of evidence for it. Science has yet to publicly display one shred of evidence for it. Yet you and others have brought evolution into origins theology. You have been asked for the evidence for decades. How is it that I have to prove that this evidence doesn't exist? I don't want published reports about the evidence. I want to SEE the evidence.

How come without muh effort you could Google dozens if not hundreds of Biology/Molecular Bology journal articles with such evidence? And people have listed some on here.

But I guess if you don't click on the links and read then of course you can still maintain you haven't seen the evidence. Not much of a position but I guess it is technically true you haven't seen it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Fine, just don't use scientific terms in its defence then.

We may not have to discuss the moon as God may simply remove it from the solar system, based on what it represents.