Gap Theory

[ReformedBaptist]

So, it's your contention that, in order to believe in a 6 day creation, one must believe that evidence of human and dinosaur tracks existing at the same time has been found?

The Bible teaches that all beasts of the field, and man, were created on the sixth day. We look at evidence, bones, and see dinosaurs-a beast fo the field. THen it is true that dinosaurs and man co-existed.

It is not needed one way or the other to find tracks to substantiate this belief. The belief begins and ends with the Scirpture. We can look at existing evidence and interpret it in light of the Bible.

 

[Johnv]

It is not needed one way or the other to find tracks to substantiate this belief.

Uhh, that's what I've been saying all along, and you've been arguing with me.

 

[Winman]

There is no evidence in the aforementioned link. Just some finds and photos which the finders refuse to let anyone analyze.

I don't need science to confirm my scriptural view. That said, if there is an item of evidence, it needs to be subject to peer review and the scientific method like another other item of evidence. Doesn't matter if that evidence supports the idea of man and dinos living together or not.

Whether or not the evidence has been analyzed or not I do not know, and I do not know how you know this for a fact. But many tracks have been analyzed scientifically. Here is one example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA

And here is the author's answer to some of his critics.

http://ianjuby.org/delk/commentary.html

I don't know if you saw the movie Expelled by Ben Stein. He showed the predjudice against creationism in our universities. Many have lost their jobs because they dared question evolution. So when you say their has been no peer review, it really is meaningless. If a man or woman is afraid of losing their job they will be pressured to side against any evidence supporting creation whether they truly believe that way or not.

As ReformedBaptist said, the scriptures say God created man and all the animals in six days, so dinos and man had to live together. That is good enough for me, but I am not afraid of science. The Bible is truth, and so in the end, all true science will agree with the scriptures.

1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[bodyofchrist32]

Secrets

I think the questions of whether or not there was a gap, or whether there was a pre-adamic civilization, fall under the heading of Deuteronomy 29:29. They are "secret things", which cannot be proven or disproven by anything in scripture, and therefore, since God does not let us know, it must not be meant for our knowledge.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Uhh, that's what I've been saying all along, and you've been arguing with me.

Then I misunderstood. Sorry.

 

[Johnv]

I don't know if you saw the movie Expelled by Ben Stein

I did. I love Ben Stein and think he's fantastic. The movie was good at pointing out how the scientific method is often dictated to, and frequently hijcked, by the business model.

But Stein doesn't make an argument for creationism, he makes an argument for intelligent design, which is a completely separate concept from creationism.

There are some grossly inaccurate claims in the movie by some who participated. Richard Steinberg, for example, claims his life was ruined after publishing a pro-intelligent design article. In actuality, Sternberg was an unpaid editor of the magazine, and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months the Meyer article was published.

Caroline Crocker claims she was fired because she mentioned Intelligent Design in a class, but in reality, Crocker was teaching on a course-by-course basis for a set length of time. She completed the courses which she was contracted to teach, and was, in fact, not fired.

Guillermo Gonzalez claims in the movie that he was denied tenure because of his publications on intelligent design, but a look at his records actually shows that he had been denied tenure before his work was published.

 

[Winman]

I did. I love Ben Stein and think he's fantastic. The movie was good at pointing out how the scientific method is often dictated to, and frequently hijcked, by the business model.

But Stein doesn't make an argument for creationism, he makes an argument for intelligent design, which is a completely separate concept from creationism.

There are some grossly inaccurate claims in the movie by some who participated. Richard Steinberg, for example, claims his life was ruined after publishing a pro-intelligent design article. In actuality, Sternberg was an unpaid editor of the magazine, and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months the Meyer article was published.

Caroline Crocker claims she was fired because she mentioned Intelligent Design in a class, but in reality, Crocker was teaching on a course-by-course basis for a set length of time. She completed the courses which she was contracted to teach, and was, in fact, not fired.

Guillermo Gonzalez claims in the movie that he was denied tenure because of his publications on intelligent design, but a look at his records actually shows that he had been denied tenure before his work was published.

I also like Ben Stein. And yes, I know he is not a creationist, he seems to be undecided on what he believes in interviews about this movie I have seen. The point of the movie was academic freedom. The point of the movie was that evolution is widely accepted in higher education and opposing views are not tolerated. And this was my point, when you say evidence by creationsists has not been peer reviewed, a person must take this important fact in account. As the author of that article I gave you a link commented, many scientific publications refuse to print creationist-biased material, then turn around and say it has not met peer review.

How clever, this easily fools the naive and uninformed.

 

[Johnv]

No, peer review is different than what the movie was referring to. Peer review is the allowing of peers to review one's data. That's different than the point of academic freedom. The movie does indeed make an argument (altough rather weakly) for academic freedom, but the movie makes no claim that the peer review process is being usurped.

My earlier point was that, in at laest one case mentined above about human tracks, the claimants refuse to allow their data to be subjected to peer review. In others, peer review found that the human track claims were not human tracks.

 

[Winman]

No, peer review is different than what the movie was referring to. Peer review is the allowing of peers to review one's data. That's different than the point of academic freedom. The movie does indeed make an argument (altough rather weakly) for academic freedom, but the movie makes no claim that the peer review process is being usurped.

My earlier point was that, in at laest one case mentined above about human tracks, the claimants refuse to allow their data to be subjected to peer review. In others, peer review found that the human track claims were not human tracks.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you. As that author noted, many scientific publications refuse to publish evidence from creationists. If you do not think that is stifiling academic freedom, I don't know what would convince you. That is what the whole movie Expelled was about.

And if you read that author's site, you will see he will agree to let others examine the track being discussed under careful scrutiny, only because evidence submitted before has been destroyed.

Fact is, there are many accomplished scientists who believed in creation. Evolutionists would be hard pressed to find scientists of this rank and caliber among themselves.

TABLE I
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)



TABLE II
NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

CONTRIBUTION SCIENTIST
ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ACTUARIAL TABLES CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
BAROMETER BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
BIOGENESIS LAW LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULATING MACHINE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
DOUBLE STARS WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
EPHEMERIS TABLES JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
FERMENTATION CONTROL LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
GALVANOMETER JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
GLOBAL STAR CATALOG JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)
INERT GASES WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
KALEIDOSCOPE DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
LAW OF GRAVITY ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
MINE SAFETY LAMP HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
PASTEURIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
REFLECTING TELESCOPE ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)
SELF-INDUCTION JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)
THERMIONIC VALVE AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

 

[Johnv]

... many scientific publications refuse to publish evidence from creationists... That is what the whole movie Expelled was about.

No, it wasn't. The movie "Expelled" was about Intelligent Design, and not about creationism. In fact, the movie was not necessarily trying to dispel theories of evolution at all.

 

[Winman]

Now you are playing word games. Almost all evolutionists condsider Intelligent Design as an outgrowth of Creationism. Here is just the first paragraph from Wikipedia on Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

It is clear that most evolutionists consider ID as a form of Creationism. And they are correct, it is.

If you want to discuss this intelligently I will participate. But if you want to play word games like this I am not going to waste my time.

 

[Gina B]

Brethren,

I'm teaching the Book of Genesis in an adult Bible institute at my church each Thursday night. One of the issues that naturally comes up is the "gap" theory. The theory that there is a "gap" or space of undermined time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I'm curious to know what you think and if you believe there is a gap? If so, what are your reasons. If not, what are your reasons? Keep in mind that I may use some or all of what you say in my class as I teach. I appreciate the input. God bless you.

Bro. Paul

I used to, and no longer do.
The reason I previously believed in a gap theory was the apparent age of the earth. When trying to fit physical and Biblical science together, it made sense. It also made sense out of the verse that tells us that our planet was created for Lucifer. That means that no, there didn't have to be death. It meant that Lucifer was cast down to...where? Earth. That means the Fall happened before creation. It also explains why Lucifer was on earth, tempting people to sin.

So why do I no longer believe that? First, because the Scriptures do not present a gap. They don't even imply it, unless you really dig. That alone doesn't neutralize the gap theory, but it does make it less plausible. Second, (and this one is what personally convinces me most) is that it appears, through various studies of history and the Bible, that Lucifer was put in CHARGE of our planet. He was to protect it. It was not created for him in the sense that it was for the habit of himself and other angels, it was created, in seven literal days, and he was put there in good faith. This means the Fall did not happen before creation. The third reason involves scientific studies of how the planets and atmosphere themselves were formed, and it is scientifically possible for this to happen, with all the appearance of age we see, in seven literal days.

If anyone before me said the same thing, I apologize. I read through a few pages and quit because it seemed to be turning to bickering.

 

[Johnv]

Almost all evolutionists condsider Intelligent Design as an outgrowth of Creationism.

On the flip side, Creationists do not consuder ID synonymous with creationism. Die hard creationist groups such as Bob Jones University expressly differentiate between ID and Creationism. They teach them as completely separate subjects in their cirriculum. In 2005, they ran an ad in magazines such as Christianity Today warning people not to equate ID with creationism (the ad was selling their textbooks).

 

[Winman]

That's a different matter althogether. A creationist will generally hold to the six day creation account in Genesis, where an ID simply believes God created the universe and may have taken millions, or even billions of years. So while both believe in a Creator, there are differences.

But evolutionists generally see ID's as Creationists. Go to any evolutionist website where they discuss ID and you will see they call it a veiled form of Creationism. And they are 100% correct, it is.

The evolutionists can always argue that teaching ID or Creationism is a violation of church and state. There is some validity in this argument.

Creationists and ID's argue that evolution is a faith and should also not be taught as a violation of church and state. This argument is valid also.

But the govenment and universities across the nation freely permit the teaching of evolution and fight against ID and creationism. This is not academic freedom.

Science is truth. If God created the universe (which he did), then this is science. Yes, it is religion, but it is also true science if it is the truth. People should be allowed to examine the several different theories of origins and make their own decision on what is true. This is not being allowed.

 

[Johnv]

To be more specific, ID simply asserts that there was a designer. It doesn't say who or what that designer was. ID also doesn't attempt to challenge evolution. It simply asserts that, if a structure was created through an evolutionary process, that the process was conducted by a designer.

The problem with ID is that it is not science, because it doesn't use the scientific method as its basis. I have no problem with ID as a philosophy, but it categorically does not qualify as a field of scientific study.

 

[Winman]

I totally disagree. Are you saying that demonstrating design in all of creation is not science? It cannot be observed and tested? It is completely scientific in every way.

 

[Johnv]

I'm saying that science by definition attepts to answer the question of how something happens. It doesn't attempt to answer the question of whodunnit. ID attempts to say whodunnit, not how something was done. That categorically disqualifies it as science. It's an excellent philosophical model, but it's not science.

 

[Winman]

So when Louis Pasteur challanged the scientific theory of spontaneous generation, that was not science? Because that was the question, whether life arises spontaneously from non-living matter as some proposed, or whether there was another cause for life springing forth.

You seem to have your own idea of what science is.

And really, Pasteur answered it all. He proved God. Because all life has been shown to arise from life, and that no life has ever been demonstrated to arise from non-living matter, this proves that life must have always existed, or it would not exist now. For if all life died, there would be no new life to arise. Therefore if life exists now, it must have existed throughout eternity. And this is the proof of an eternal God.

 

[Johnv]

Interestingly, it was Aristotle that theorized the theory of spontaneous generation. Louis Pasteur was able to successfully disprove Aristotle's theory using the scientific method, including the work of scientists whose scientific work had preceded him (likewise adhered to the scientific method). Pasteur's work led to germ theory and cell theory, which replaced spontaneous generation theory.

There's nothing unscientific about Pasteur's work at all here, becuase it adheres to the scientific method. ID, however, does not utilize the scientific method.

 

[Winman]

Well, I can't help but notice you seem to be very biased against Creationism and ID. I think you choose to ignore the facts.

Here is an article from IDs on whether it is science or not. It can explain much better than I.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832