Gap Theory

[OldWiseGuy]

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?

Would you accept weather with fewer extremes? I'm willing to revise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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



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.

But that small change made a big change in the weather. Think what a big change might do.

 

[KerrMetric]

Would you accept weather with fewer extremes? I'm willing to revise.

I would accept that with a qualifier. Modelling the global climate is a very complex task and a first look would suggest what you are saying (and I have said previously too) but I wouldn't be surprised that if modelled in detail it isn't true. But yes, my gut feeling is that less extrema is likely.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

I didn't expect to convince 'anyone here'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

You statements and questions are a rhetorical dismissal of Gap theory. Why would anyone try to convince you otherwise?

But I have a question for you. How does TE explain Genesis 1:1-2? It is the link to the old earth for all OAE theories. Leaving out evolution TE is a 'theistic' theory. Explain the link to God.

 

[jetzeppelin]

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

Why evolution? A GOd that uses evolution to create? That's not a God at all. Theistic and Progressive evolution are copouts to the world. You have to put the Word of God first, and make it the objective authority. You'll find that science, cosmology, biology and archaeology match up perfectly to the 6,000 year History of time according to the Bible.

 

[KerrMetric]

Why evolution? A GOd that uses evolution to create? That's not a God at all. Theistic and Progressive evolution are copouts to the world.

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

You have to put the Word of God first, and make it the objective authority.

How is that objective? It is your subjective interpretation.

You'll find that science, cosmology, biology and archaeology match up perfectly to the 6,000 year History of time according to the Bible.

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

 

[LoG]

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

Scipturally, it was cosmic scaled.

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

A Gap perspective believes that the sun was not able to shine through a heavy cloud cover surrounding the Earth OR because the sun died and therefore gave off the water which God had to divide in verse 7.

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".

To me the biggest difference from the TE camp would be that the Pleistocene extinction event was total as opposed to only the megafauna. You say prove discontinuities and I say prove the continuity of those life forms that were least adapted to survival of a widespread Ice-age which certainly would be the result of no sunlight reaching the Earth. Combine that with that the Earth was covered with water(ice?) in Gen1:2, it lends a lot of credibility to the Earth being void of life.

Is continuity based on anything more concrete than the assumption that because there is still life there must have been continuity? Seems to me that position is just as unfalsifiable as discontinuity.

 

[Mallon]

Why evolution? A GOd that uses evolution to create? That's not a God at all.

Why not?

You'll find that science, cosmology, biology and archaeology match up perfectly to the 6,000 year History of time according to the Bible.

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

 

[Mallon]

Is continuity based on anything more concrete than the assumption that because there is still life there must have been continuity? Seems to me that position is just as unfalsifiable as discontinuity.

Yes. If we observe the rock record, we can see species that survived the extinction you mention (i.e. are found on either side of the extinction boundary).

Does this now falsify your argument?

There are many other ways in which geology and palaeontology falsify Gap Theory. Despite what its subscribers might contend, Gap Theory really isn't very well supported by the earth sciences (beyond a superficial glossing-over of the facts).

 

[LoG]

Yes. If we observe the rock record, we can see species that survived the extinction you mention (i.e. are found on either side of the extinction boundary).

Does this now falsify your argument?

No. As has already been stated in this thread, God brought forth from the Earth and the water, life forms after their kinds. Some of the megafauna for reasons conjectured from other sources, weren't.

There are many other ways in which geology and palaeontology falsify Gap Theory. Despite what its subscribers might contend, Gap Theory really isn't very well supported by the earth sciences (beyond a superficial glossing-over of the facts).

Good, let's hear these other ways.

 

[Mallon]

No. As has already been stated in this thread, God brought forth from the Earth and the water, life forms after their kinds. Some of the megafauna for reasons conjectured from other sources, weren't.

So God destroyed all species near the end of the Pleistocene, only bring some of the exact same ones back again at the 2nd Creation?

Good, let's hear these other ways.

Well, for one, my understanding of the Gap Theory is that it proposes an adaptive radiation (speciation) from a primitive "kind" ancestor that outpaces any natural process we see at work today. That's not in keeping with science.
There's also the little problem that GT predicts (or at least you predict) the largest extinction to occur near the end of the Pleistocene, when the rock record tells us that the largest extinction occurred at the Permian-Triassic boundary.

 

[shernren]

But that small change made a big change in the weather. Think what a big change might do.

Yep. If the earth's axis was completely perpendicular, there would be no seasonal variations in angle of receipt of sunlight, and full solar heating would cause the tropics to be completely uninhabitable. Illinois appears to believe that K-12 students should know this: http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/iga/interact/samples/sam-9-07.htm Do you consider that perfect? (I live in the tropics, do you see why I protest? )

And by the way, there will always be cyclones on earth for the simple fact that it is a sphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem#Cyclone_consequences

But I have a question for you. How does TE explain Genesis 1:1-2? It is the link to the old earth for all OAE theories. Leaving out evolution TE is a 'theistic' theory. Explain the link to God.

You aren't God, so I'm assuming that you don't expect me to explain the link to you.

But anyways, why can't a TE believe in Genesis 1:1 and 2? We do believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and we do believe that had it not been for God's creative effort the earth would indeed have been "void and formless". I don't see any problem or inconsistency for my interpretation.

Scipturally, it was cosmic scaled.

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

A Gap perspective believes that the sun was not able to shine through a heavy cloud cover surrounding the Earth OR because the sun died and therefore gave off the water which God had to divide in verse 7.

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

To me the biggest difference from the TE camp would be that the Pleistocene extinction event was total as opposed to only the megafauna.

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

You say prove discontinuities and I say prove the continuity of those life forms that were least adapted to survival of a widespread Ice-age which certainly would be the result of no sunlight reaching the Earth.

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

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

 

[Marshall Janzen]

And by the way, there will always be cyclones on earth for the simple fact that it is a sphere:

Well sure, it's a sphere now...

Anyway, more seriously, this thread has been a bit embarrassing to read. As I've stated before, my transition from YEC to TE took place by way of gap theory. For me, there came a time when I could no longer deny things like ice cores showing hundreds of thousands of years of history, and gap theory seemed to provide an easy answer. It explained why the earth was old, why there would be strange fossils all over the place, and to top it all, it was a really cool epic story. Even then, I was pretty sure that both the theology and the science of it wouldn't hold up if I looked too closely, but at a superficial level, it seemed to solve a lot of problems. It seemed like a good halfway measure between YEC and atheism (at that time, I thought those were the only options).

Anyway, I'm still a bit fond of the theory as far as the story it tells, though the version I accepted is not at all like what oldwiseguy has presented. The gap story I accepted had nothing to do with weird ideas about perfection and numerology. It was kind of cool to think of an earlier age of the earth where cosmic battles were taking place on earth. Now, when I have a craving for that, I go to the real thing and pick up something by Tolkien.

 

[LoG]

So God destroyed all species near the end of the Pleistocene, only bring some of the exact same ones back again at the 2nd Creation?

That is what the fossil record appears to indicate.

Well, for one, my understanding of the Gap Theory is that it proposes an adaptive radiation (speciation) from a primitive "kind" ancestor that outpaces any natural process we see at work today. That's not in keeping with science.

New one on me. I have not seen anyone tie adaptive radiation and the GT together.

There's also the little problem that GT predicts (or at least you predict) the largest extinction to occur near the end of the Pleistocene, when the rock record tells us that the largest extinction occurred at the Permian-Triassic boundary.

Can you point out the post where I said it was the largest?

 

[KerrMetric]

Can you point out the post where I said it was the largest?

I agree you didn't but you did imply that.

 

[Mallon]

That is what the fossil record appears to indicate.

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

Can you point out the post where I said it was the largest?

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

 

[gluadys]

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.

Then go where it is to be seen. To museums, to university labs. Enrol in an course in evolutionary biology and get yourself a position on a research team.

Do you really expect the physical evidence to be brought into your living room?

Good heavens! Even most scientists have to depend on published reports of what other scientists investigated. Not more than a handful actually spent time in the Galapagos with Peter and Rosemary Grant as they studied finches for 20 years. Everyone else learns their findings through their published reports.

 

[gluadys]

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 are not and never have been the be-all and end-all of evidence for evolution. There is a lot of evidence for evolution outside of fossils. Richard Dawkins claims we have ample non-fossil evidence to substantiate evolution, and fossils are a welcome but not necessary addition to that.

But if you must have physical fossil evidence, look at the list of fossils in the reptile-mammal transition, especially those with two jaw hinges: one reptilian and one mammalian.

If you want to actually see those fossils, I expect you may have to take a world tour of the museums/universities where they are located.

 

[gluadys]

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.

As I observed once before, the reason it doesn't make sense to you is probably because you don't understand it.

Take the time necessary to learn what the theory of evolution actually says (not a strawman version designed to make it look silly) and what evidence sustains it, and it will likely make a lot more sense.