Gap Theory

Willtor · Mar 20, 2006

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

I'm kind of afraid to ask, but. . . what does the moon represent?

OldWiseGuy · Mar 20, 2006

KerrMetric said:
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.

I want to see convincing evidence from the physical fossils remains upon which the theory is based. Written reports are a 'pig in a poke'.

Mallon · Mar 20, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I want to see convincing evidence from the physical fossils remains upon which the theory is based. Not written reports.

But according to you, a theory does not need physical evidence for support. Even a "hunch" qualifies as support for a theory, in your opinion (post #46).
Why the double standard?

KerrMetric · Mar 20, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I want to see convincing evidence from the physical fossils remains upon which the theory is based. Written reports are a 'pig in a poke'.

Fossils??? You don't need fossils, though there is validity in those studies too. Hey, if you don't understand papers in molecular biology journals that isn't their fault is it. Journal papers aren't written for the layman.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 20, 2006

KerrMetric said:
Fossils??? You don't need fossils, though there is validity in those studies too. Hey, if you don't understand papers in molecular biology journals that isn't their fault is it. Journal papers aren't written for the layman.

The main reason that I don't believe it is that it just doesn't make sense to me. Man changing into an ape makes more real sense than the other way.

KerrMetric · Mar 20, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
The main reason that I don't believe it is that it just doesn't make sense to me..

But the precise fluid mixing of gas and air and the subsequent igntion in the cylinders of your car isn't (probably) understood by you either, but you still believe in the internal combustion engine don't you.

The "just doesn't make sense to me" is not really a good reason.

Mallon · Mar 20, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I accept 99 per cent of science. But evolution is... an atheistic, godless, unproven scientific idea has been morphed into a godly one and incorporated into a theology.

Why is the theory of evolution any more godless and atheistic than the other "99 per cent of science" that you accept?

shernren · Mar 20, 2006

I am asking a genuine question in the hopes of learning more about your POV. Do you have an answer?

Frankly speaking I can summarize oldwiseguy's PoV in one sentence:

I am the universal arbiter of perfection - whatever I think God told me is true, is true; and whatever I think God told me is false, is false.

oldwiseguy, you have every opportunity to prove me wrong. You can start pulling out biblical proof for the aesthetic beauty of whole numbers, for the perfectness of a 360-day perfectly circular Earth orbit, for the God-approved-ness of an exactly perpendicular angle of Earth's axis to Earth's orbital plane. You can start looking up passages where it says that man was made a little lower than the angels, or where it says that angels were created to be ministering spirits, and match it up against what you believe that angels have physical bodies and the Earth was made for them. You can start reading through talkorigins and trying to debunk the whole thing one FAQ at a time systematically and scientifically.

Or you can go on believing what you believe without any better reason than "Shucks, the alternative don't make no sense ta' me, y'know?". Your loss, not mine.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 20, 2006

KerrMetric said:
But the precise fluid mixing of gas and air and the subsequent igntion in the cylinders of your car isn't (probably) understood by you either, but you still believe in the internal combustion engine don't you.

The "just doesn't make sense to me" is not really a good reason.

I like steam engines better. They make much more sense. Here's something I just found that supports my ignorance about orbit/tilt and climate.

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Changes in Earth's Orbit Led to Calm Climate Period
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]By SPACE.com Staff

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]posted: 12:02 pm ET
15 April 2001
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
Scientists have long studied how variations in Earth's orbit relate to ice ages, cycles of glacier building and retreat, and even mass extinctions. New research has uncovered some surprising relationships among all these things.
About 23 million years ago, a huge ice sheet spread over Antarctica, temporarily reversing a general trend of global warming, decreasing ice volume and ushering in a generally calm climatic period. The new study suggests this period corresponded with a rare combination of events in the pattern of Earth's trek around the Sun.
The idea that cyclical variations in Earth's orbit can cause major climate changes was first proposed by astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch. The main variables are eccentricity, obliquity and precession.
Eccentricity refers to the changing shape of Earth's orbit around the Sun, which varies from nearly circular to elliptical over a cycle of about 100,000 years. Obliquity refers to the angle at which Earth's axis is tilted with respect to the plane of its orbit, varying between 22.1 degrees and 24.5 degrees over a 41,000-year cycle. Precession is the gradual change in the direction Earth's axis is pointing, a 21,000-year cycle during which the axis carves out an imaginary cone shape.
"What we found at 23 million years ago is a rare congruence of a low point in Earth's eccentricity and a period of minimal variation in obliquity," said James Zachos, a professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
The result was a period of about 200,000 years when there was unusually low variability in the planet's climate, with reduced extremes of seasonal warmth and coldness, say Zachos and his colleagues.
Earth's orbit was nearly circular, so its distance from the Sun stayed about the same throughout the year. In addition, the tilt of Earth's axis, which gives rise to the seasons, varied less than usual. In other words, the tilt doesn't always vary between the same extremes in its 41,000-year cycles; the obliquity cycle itself varies in amplitude over a longer period of about 1.25 million years. Similarly, the eccentricity cycle peaks every 400,000 years.
When the researchers began the study, "we never suspected that the transient glaciation at 23 million years ago had anything to do with orbital anomalies," Zachos said.
Zachos worked with Nicholas Shackleton and Heiko Pälike of Cambridge University, Justin Revenaugh of UC Santa Cruz, and Benjamin Flower of the University of South Florida. Their findings are discussed in the April 13 issue of the journal Science.
The researchers obtained detailed climate records by analyzing sediment cores drilled out of the ocean floor. Cutting through layers of sediments laid down over millions of years, such cores contain a chronological record of past climates written in the chemistry of fossilized shells left behind by tiny marine organisms.
"I'm not sure everyone will be convinced that the orbital anomaly alone is responsible," Zachos said. "But the congruence of those orbital cycles is a very rare event, and the fact that it exactly corresponds with this rare climatic event is compelling."
[/FONT]

Trash away, they're one of you.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 20, 2006

Mallon said:
Why is the theory of evolution any more godless and atheistic than the other "99 per cent of science" that you accept?

99 per cent of science makes sense to me. Evolution doesn't. It's that simple. Why don't you and I just agree on the 99 per cent and let it go at that?

KerrMetric · Mar 20, 2006

That is a well known hypothesis. I don't see what it has to do wih your comments particularly. I don't deny the climatic effects with changing the Earth orbital parameters and the obliquity. But reduced extrema does not imply sub-tropical warmth everywhere as you implied. In fact some of this info I provided in another thread to you.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 20, 2006

shernren said:
Frankly speaking I can summarize oldwiseguy's PoV in one sentence:

I am the universal arbiter of perfection - whatever I think God told me is true, is true; and whatever I think God told me is false, is false.

oldwiseguy, you have every opportunity to prove me wrong. You can start pulling out biblical proof for the aesthetic beauty of whole numbers, for the perfectness of a 360-day perfectly circular Earth orbit, for the God-approved-ness of an exactly perpendicular angle of Earth's axis to Earth's orbital plane. You can start looking up passages where it says that man was made a little lower than the angels, or where it says that angels were created to be ministering spirits, and match it up against what you believe that angels have physical bodies and the Earth was made for them. You can start reading through talkorigins and trying to debunk the whole thing one FAQ at a time systematically and scientifically.

Or you can go on believing what you believe without any better reason than "Shucks, the alternative don't make no sense ta' me, y'know?". Your loss, not mine.

Is there a specific question that I can answer?

OldWiseGuy · Mar 20, 2006

KerrMetric said:
That is a well known hypothesis. I don't see what it has to do wih your comments particularly. I don't deny the climatic effects with changing the Earth orbital parameters and the obliquity. But reduced extrema does not imply sub-tropical warmth everywhere as you implied. In fact some of this info I provided in another thread to you.

I was delighted to find this article, as I deduced these effects from common sense alone. I was right, and I stand vindicated.

LoG · Mar 20, 2006

gluadys said:
This is very like the OEC view. But I am not sure that OEC ever sees a complete extermination of life. It does see mass extinctions due to major global catastrophes, followed by the creation of new life forms for the new age.

Gen 1:2 says that the Earth was void. That would mean it was void of life.
If DNA evidence proves or has proven that the Homo Sapiens from a previous creation are the same as the ones that exist today, it wouldn't be a problem from a scriptural POV that I'm aware of. The question would also remain whether these previous inhabitants were created in the "image of God".

Here you can get a decent overview of the Gap Theory.
There are a number of different interpretation of the GT, but this one is close to what I think, for whatever that is worth.

KerrMetric · Mar 20, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I was delighted to find this article, as I deduced these effects from common sense alone. I was right, and I stand vindicated.

How were you correct. I told you this info on another thread a while ago. You said sub-tropical warnth everywhere. Will you tell m where that is indicated?

KerrMetric · Mar 20, 2006

oldwiseguy,

read it again. It claims the glaciation reversing a warming trend was caused by the more circular orbit and reduced obliquity. It says the opposite of what you want except the less extremes which a 12 year old could figure out.

shernren · Mar 21, 2006

Is there a specific question that I can answer?

Practically every clause in that third paragraph represents a challenge to your position. Pick your choice.

Here's something I just found that supports my ignorance about orbit/tilt and climate.

Guess what happened when the orbit became more circular and the variation of the tilt decreased? "A[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] huge ice sheet spread over Antarctica, temporarily reversing a general trend of global warming, decreasing ice volume and ushering in a generally calm climatic period."[/FONT]

Sounds like you wouldn't get a general warm summer ... you'd get a general cold winter. And I can think of a lot of people (hint: Torino) who'd like that, even if you wouldn't.

Besides, the article said that the variation in the tilt decreased. It doesn't mean that the tilt itself decreased. The tilt never went anywhere nearer 0 degrees - it just hovered closer to 23.5 degrees and thus farther from 0 degrees.

Pass Go, don't collect $200.

Mallon · Mar 21, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
99 per cent of science makes sense to me. Evolution doesn't. It's that simple. Why don't you and I just agree on the 99 per cent and let it go at that?

Because I expect more rigour from yourself after having to put up with "TEs fear Gap Theory" and "Gap Theory kicks butt."
I'm sorry to say you've done a deplorable job at convincing anyone here of that.

LoG · Mar 21, 2006

Mallon said:
Because I expect more rigour from yourself after having to put up with "TEs fear Gap Theory" and "Gap Theory kicks butt."
I'm sorry to say you've done a deplorable job at convincing anyone here of that.

There hasn't been much in this thread about the Gap Theory. No offence intended to anyone here.

The GT from a scriptural standpoint doesn't specify what exactly happened in that gap between Gen1:1 and verse 3, only that there was at least another previous creation. Although not all GT's agree, many take the rest of the creation week as a literal event that happened around 6000 years ago.

The specifics of what went on in during that gap period varies from person to person. There are some that believe that evolution took place during that time, some believe that there were multiple creations with no evolution and some who don't care either way since the only important aspect is that 6000 years ago God reconstructed the Earth and everything in it the way the bible lays it out.
GT doesn't take away the literal interpretation of Genesis but neither denies the age of the Earth and its fossil evidence. I agree with Oldwise that the theory "kicks butt" because it makes the debate between creation and evolution a non-issue. The only bones of contention is with TE's because they mythologize the creation to fit it with their worldview and with YEC's because they "mythologize" the scientific evidence to make it line up with theirs.
Gap Theory allows for harmony of both the scriptures and scientific evidence.

shernren · Mar 21, 2006

There hasn't been much in this thread about the Gap Theory. No offence intended to anyone here.

The GT from a scriptural standpoint doesn't specify what exactly happened in that gap between Gen1:1 and verse 3, only that there was at least another previous creation. Although not all GT's agree, many take the rest of the creation week as a literal event that happened around 6000 years ago.

The specifics of what went on in during that gap period varies from person to person. There are some that believe that evolution took place during that time, some believe that there were multiple creations with no evolution and some who don't care either way since the only important aspect is that 6000 years ago God reconstructed the Earth and everything in it the way the bible lays it out.
GT doesn't take away the literal interpretation of Genesis but neither denies the age of the Earth and its fossil evidence. I agree with Oldwise that the theory "kicks butt" because it makes the debate between creation and evolution a non-issue. The only bones of contention is with TE's because they mythologize the creation to fit it with their worldview and with YEC's because they "mythologize" the scientific evidence to make it line up with theirs.
Gap Theory allows for harmony of both the scriptures and scientific evidence.

No offense taken, I don't consider oldwiseguy's beliefs a standard synthesis of GT anyway. But there are two things I'm curious about:

1. What predictions does GT make concerning outer space? Was the ruin and reconstruction limited to earth or was it cosmic-scaled?

More importantly,

2. What discontinuities does GT predict? i.e. biological and geological discontinuities (looking at the Earth-only scope of things so far). My main contention with GT so far is that it seems to me to predict exactly nothing, so that since it can't be falsified (due to the lack of, not positive verification of, falsifiable hypotheses) it "must be true". Old-earth evidence belongs to a "previous creation", but the assumption that it belongs to a previous creation simply because it is old doesn't hold: you will have to demonstrate why it belongs to a previous creation rather than the "current" creation.

Shucks, you've not just got the global flood on your plate, you've got to document the "void and formless"ness of Genesis 1 too. Two global catastrophes for the price of one!

So until proven otherwise I'll stand by what I believe: Gap Theory is related far more to Apparent-Ageism than anything in the whatever-E-C camp.

Gap Theory

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Wake me when it's soup.

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

Veteran

you are not reading this.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency