Taking Questions on Genesis

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I was hoping you were going to show me how scientists supported your assertion...not your interpretation of some aspects of science. No worries, though.

Thanks. I don't think there is a 'paper' on the subject.

 

[46AND2]

I isolated the age of the earth from the spiritual aspects of Gap theory. The 'gap' in Gap theory is the time lapse between the original creation and the renewal of Genesis 1. Science has posed a number, and I'm good with that (once you get to billions of years your head spins).

I know you did, and that's why, when you said this:

The evidence for Gap theory is stronger than the evidence for evolution theory, by science's own admission.

you were wrong. Science does not even address gap theory. Agreeing that the age of the earth is ancient, is not the same thing as supporting gap theory.

If you MUST compare gap theory with evolution, then you would have to admit that they are on equal footing, by your rationale. They BOTH require an old earth, and science agrees the earth is old. But there is more involved for both of them than just that bullet point.

Finally, since science DOES address evolution, science would seem to have more support for evolution than it does for gap theory.

 

[Colter]

If the Flood pureed these rocks into a fine powder, then it doesn't surprise me that you can find fossils in any rock layer.

In fact, if you found a fossil in a diamond, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Anyone can find a fossil in the sand.

But find one in a diamond, and I'll probably say the Flood did it.

Like any other form of idolatry, those who worship the Bible fetish confuse faith with belligerent denial. Why do you indulge in debate over these matters when you aren't sincere to begin with? You have no intention to listen to reasoned counter points!

 

[AV1611VET]

Like any other form of idolatry, those who worship the Bible fetish confuse faith with belligerent denial. Why do you indulge in debate over these matters when you aren't sincere to begin with? You have no intention to listen to reasoned counter points!

Ouch!

Did you see what happened to me when I said, "I don't know"?

I got filleted.

And while I like your term "belligerent denial," I'm not partial to "Bible fetish."

And putting my sincerity into question was kinda low too.

I look at it this way:

If I can make something up ... "speculate" ... then it keeps others from rolling over us with their ever-changing facts.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If the Flood pureed these rocks into a fine powder, then it doesn't surprise me that you can find fossils in any rock layer.

I am getting dizzy! Would you please stop running in circles?

Ok, now you are back to flood geology. You might think the materials of the rock layers were made in 4004 BC but you are now apparently saying the flood picked it all up, pureed it, and deposited it back in layerscenturies later. So you are not saying the layers were made in 4004 BC.

And yet one of the biggest layers in the Grand Canyon is the Cocanino sandstone, which is made from wind blown sand. If the layers above and below it were deposited in the flood how did that get there?

Now that you are talking about the layers being formed centuries after 4004 BC, you cannot claim appearance of age , not unless you want to claim that the flood magically deposited sandstone to look like wind blown sand.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I'm the source (logic).

Gap theory says that the earth is very old. Science has confirmed this as absolute fact.

Gap Theory isn't a scientific proposition. The fact that we've confirmed the earth is billions of years old is coincidental to your idea.

Evolution theory isn't as solid as the age of the earth is, by any scientific measure.

Evolution Theory is entirely more supported than the age of the earth. We know the earth to be at least 4.5 billion years old, but we might find rock that puts it as being older, then we'll have a revised age of the earth again. Evolution on the other hand is so well supported that the age of the earth is much more likely to change than the theory of evolution by natural selection is, and in fact, over the past few decades, that is indeed what has historically happened - the age of the earth has been revised up, with the current figure (of 4.5 +/- 0.1 billion years) being arrived at in 1956 - 61 years ago ( Changing Views of the History of the Earth ). the Theory of Evolution has essentially just been padded out and aspects refined in that same time.

The evidence for Gap theory is absolute. Not so with evolution. Ask any scientist if the ToE is as certain as the age of the earth, remembering that the ToE depends on an ancient earth. An ancient earth doesn't depend on the ToE.

The Gap Theory isn't even a scientific proposition, so any connection with actual scientific evidence in support of it is entirely inferred and incidental. The Theory of Evolution on the other hand is not just scientific and a theory in science, it is one of the most well-supported scientific theories we have.

I isolated the age of the earth from the spiritual aspects of Gap theory. The 'gap' in Gap theory is the time lapse between the original creation and the renewal of Genesis 1. Science has posed a number, and I'm good with that (once you get to billions of years your head spins).

Agreed on the age of the earth, that's as far as I'd go with that since the Gap Theory isn't even a scientific proposition...

Thanks. I don't think there is a 'paper' on the subject.

because it isn't a scientific proposition.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am getting dizzy! Would you please stop running in circles?

Sure.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The evidence for Gap theory is stronger than the evidence for evolution theory, by science's own admission.

Ah, so you think most of the fossil record occurred before genesis 1:2.

Please tell me when you think those 6 days of creation recorded in the rest of Genesis 1 happened. Then we will take a look to see if science says these things happened then.

Spoiler alert: It doesn't.

 

[Colter]

Ouch!

Did you see what happened to me when I said, "I don't know"?

I got filleted.

And while I like your term "belligerent denial," I'm not partial to "Bible fetish."

And putting my sincerity into question was kinda low too.

I look at it this way:

If I can make something up ... "speculate" ... then it keeps others from rolling over us with their ever-changing facts.

For you, the Bible books in the current and commonly accepted cannon list, were written by God. So there is no debate or reasoning about anything that conflicts.

Religion changes to, but ever so tardily. Change is eventually forced on religion. Then it try’s to pretend that there is a seemless transition between the old beliefs and the new .

 

[AV1611VET]

For you, the Bible books in the current and commonly accepted cannon list, were written by God. So there is no debate or reasoning about anything that conflicts.

Religion changes to, but ever so tardily. Change is eventually forced on religion. Then it try’s to pretend that there is a seemless transition between the old beliefs and the new .

Did you celebrate Christmas?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Did you celebrate Christmas?

I did! Gave gifts, spent time with family, enjoyed playing with my new toys, ate heartily...

 

[AV1611VET]

I did! Gave gifts, spent time with family, enjoyed playing with my new toys, ate heartily...

You do know that it was back in Genesis 3 that Jesus' virgin birth and defeat of Satan was prophesied, do you not?

 

[46AND2]

You do know that it was back in Genesis 3 that Jesus' virgin birth and defeat of Satan was prophesied, do you not?

No it wasn't.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You do know that it was back in Genesis 3 that Jesus' virgin birth and defeat of Satan was prophesied, do you not?

nope. No evidence for either of these, I suppose? In fact, as far as you're concerned, Satan is still at it, isn't he?

 

[AV1611VET]

No it wasn't.

NO IT WASN'T or NO YOU DON'T?

 

[46AND2]

NO IT WASN'T or NO YOU DON'T?

I meant what I wrote.

 

[AV1611VET]

I meant what I wrote.

Fair enough. Your opinion is noted.

 

[Colter]

Did you celebrate Christmas?

Love Christmas! It’s the Pagan holiday that we adopted when Paul’s personal version of the original gospel merged with Rome’s preveous religion and became Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Love Christmas! It’s the Pagan holiday that we adopted when Paul’s personal version of the original gospel merged with Rome’s preveous religion and became Christianity.

Which side did you celebrate? the Pagan or the Christian?

 

[Colter]

Which side did you celebrate? the Pagan or the Christian?

I celebrated the birth and incarnation of the Son of God.