Gap Theory

[Winman]

It's pigeonholing, and a bit of a strawman, implying that a person's comments are invalid unless s/he adheres to a specific set of beliefs. Since I've been dealing with matters of objective fact, my personal beliefs aren't relevant.

Give me a break. You criticize my opinions which I have been very forthcoming about, but are reluctant to expose your own beliefs to criticism. I call that a win-win proposition if there ever was one. If you are going to criticize my beliefs, then let me hear what you believe.

So let me get this straight. Unless I espouse the notion that Intelligent Design is science, I'm not a supporter of it?

No, if ID does not meet your personal opinion of what true science is, that is fine. But apply the same standards to secular and evolutionary science. They also engage in much speculation and conjecture as the articles I showed proves. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I haven't mentioned evolution at all, I'v ebeen referring strictly to ID. But now you're just dancing and backpeddling. Your past posts imply that it is your belief that ID is testable, then you say evolution isn't science, then you say that testability isn't a requirement for something to be science, and now you're going to do the "evolution isn't testable" dance.

ID is testable in the sense that complexity argues design and a designer. You have heard the old example, if you were walking on the moon and found a wristwatch, that would argue that an intelligent being had been there before you. You may not call that science, but anybody with a lick of common sense would come to that conclusion.

ID and creationism are dismissed because they fail the scientific method. There are a lot of scietific theories that I don't particularly agree with (in fact, I'm hugely debating string theory and temporal mechanics with some buddies of mine), but the fact that I don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't pass the scienteific method.

Many secular scientific theories do meet the criteria. But many do not like dark matter as I showed in that article. But many theories based on pure speculation are taught as fact in schools and universities every day.

I think ID is fantastic, but it is not science. You may not be able to accept that, but that is the truth.

Fine, but neither then is secular science because much of it is also based on unproven speculations.

All I'm saying is be fair. Apply the same standards to both. If ID is not scientific, then neither is evolution.

 

[Johnv]

You criticize my opinions which I have been very forthcoming about, but are reluctant to expose your own beliefs to criticism.

I'm not criticising your beliefs, I'm criticising your factual claim, notably, in regards to ID as science. ID isn't science because it does not adhere to the scientific method, nor does it attempt to. That's a fact, whether one likes it or not.

In regards to my beliefs, beliefs hasn't been a topic of discussion here.

...apply the same standards to secular and evolutionary science.

I've been doing exactly that.

 

[Winman]

I'm not criticising your beliefs, I'm criticising your factual claim, notably, in regards to ID as science. ID isn't science because it does not adhere to the scientific method, nor does it attempt to. That's a fact, whether one likes it or not.

In regards to my beliefs, beliefs hasn't been a topic of discussion here.

I've been doing exactly that.

If ID is not science, then neither is evolution or the big bang theory and many other scientific theories.

I am not going to continue this, you clearly hold Creationism and ID to a higher standard than secular science which also does not meet scientific criteria according to your own definition.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

He gave no indication of that but did clarify what is expected of science. Science has done a lot for mankind. Why dis it?

 

[Deacon]

I came across an article this morning that might pertain to the Gap Theory while looking at "The Bible and Interpretation" web site.

I'm not a 'Gapper and don't give that theory (or this one) much credence but...


First Verse Of Bible Was A Translation Mistake, Professor Says
by Dirk Vlasblom [Published: 9 October 2009 12:28]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," says the first verse of the first chapter of the first bible book, Genesis. But a Dutch professor of Old Testament exegesis now says this phrase was wrongly translated.

Ellen van Wolde, who holds her inaugural speech at the Raboud university in Nijmegen on Friday, says the Hebrew word bara should not be translated as 'created' but as 'separated'. So the first verse would read "God separated the heaven and the earth", indicating that there was something before Creation began.

Van Wolde has analyzed the Hebrew original of Genesis and gives a plausible explanation for her alternative translation. She mentions a series of other places in the Old Testament where the word bara appears, and she demonstrates convincingly that separated would have been the appropriate translation there too. Furthermore, she analyzed creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia, from the era in which Genesis originated, which mention a deity who separated heaven and earth at the beginning of time.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Van Wolde's interpretation of Genesis assumes that heaven, earth and water were one originally. God took them apart and gave them separate places in the universe. That leads to the conclusion that Genesis is not about the absolute beginning of time.

Rob

 

[Salty]

Interesting thread.

So interesting, I have started a poll - click here

Salty

ps Bob in post # 5, as other with similar thoughts have stated that no one died before Adam, therefore that proves there is no gap theory.

Why would someone have to die to have a gap theory? Could it be that the earth was void and without form for an undermine amount of years?

 

[Carico]

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

No. 1 Corinthians 4;6 "Do not go beyond what is written." In other words do not make any assumptions about what scripture does not say.

Genesis 1 is talking about the fact that God created the universe and man. Genesis 2 talks about how he created man and woman. Genesis 1 tells us that God created man on the 6th day. So there's no reason to add to the bible that Adam was thousands or millions of years old at the time of the fall which is not only ludicrous, but impossible as well.