The refutation of a refutation : Gap Theory

[Audie]

"Every creation interpretation tries to make science fit into their particular creation interpretation"

Who knew?

Science cannot answer how everything came into being either. So how are you not just as guilty as of making things fit your narrative?
-
-
-

If you honestly think that this is a reasonable response with the least bit of relevance, I dont know that it is worth responding.

Im seeing from you in three posts some "rubber / glue" stuff, maybe with a tinge of
implied hypocrisy on my part, esp with the bit about "ism". About me, not the topic.

How about a bit of content?

[IceMobster]

"Every creation interpretation tries to make science fit into their particular creation interpretation"

Who knew?

Science cannot answer how everything came into being either. So how are you not just as guilty as of making things fit your narrative?
-
-
-

If you honestly think that this is a reasonable response with the least bit of relevance, I dont know that it is worth responding.

Im seeing from you in three posts some "rubber / glue" stuff, maybe with a tinge of
implied hypocrisy on my part, esp with the bit about "ism". About me, not the topic.

How about a bit of content?

How is what he said not reasonable? Theory of evolution is a theory. The most plausible hypostasis. Not a fact.
Concerning the origins of life, not the adaptation part of evolution, of course.
And no, I am not a creationist.

[Audie]

"Every creation interpretation tries to make science fit into their particular creation interpretation"

Who knew?

Science cannot answer how everything came into being either. So how are you not just as guilty as of making things fit your narrative?
-
-
-

If you honestly think that this is a reasonable response with the least bit of relevance, I dont know that it is worth responding.

Im seeing from you in three posts some "rubber / glue" stuff, maybe with a tinge of
implied hypocrisy on my part, esp with the bit about "ism". About me, not the topic.

How about a bit of content?

How is what he said not reasonable? Theory of evolution is a theory. The most plausible hypostasis. Not a fact.
Concerning the origins of life, not the adaptation part of evolution, of course.
And no, I am not a creationist.

Sufficient unto the day is one person who thinks it relevant to introduce origin of the universe when my comment was about whether it is intellectually honest for people to try to force fit facts to suit their ideology.

[Philip]

Audie: it is intellectually honest for people to try to force fit facts to suit their ideology.

Audie, your "ideology" can best be summed up as "no God required for all that exists." And so, what FACTS can YOU honestly point to that support how invisible, always-existing, blind, uncreated things could have produced the sudden appearance of instantly existing things that immediately had incredible design and astounding operational functionality, on a vast scale with untold power? I"ve not seen you reference such "facts" - have you developed some new information or facts that show how this is possible? Or do you simply surmise, without facts, that these things could have appeared, so designed and functioning, that previously did not exist, without a cause, designer, or awesomely empowering intelligence? And as SOME source HAD to pre-exist to cause all that exists, you realize that it very well could be God. Or else something that self existed with God-like power and intelligence. How ELSE???!!!

[Audie]

Audie: it is intellectually honest for people to try to force fit facts to suit their ideology.

Audie, your "ideology" can best be summed up as "no God required for all that exists." And so, what FACTS can YOU honestly point to that support how invisible, always-existing, blind, uncreated things could have produced the sudden appearance of instantly existing things that immediately had incredible design and astounding operational functionality, on a vast scale with untold power?

Without the editorial you couldda said this in one sentence.

Surely, btw you didnt mean to edit my post to say the opposite of the original?


I dont know how the universe originated. I am confident that the nature of reality is far more weird than any of us can possibly grasp. We are not so far advanced beyond the point that lightning might have been described in terms much like your marvellous string of adjectives, impossible to account for but that god is throwing it about. Perhaps you'd have been satisfied to say "god", perhaps I'd not have been.

Open mindedness involves among other thigns not drawing conclusions on insufficient evidence.

You have such an odd idea of what "ideology" means.

I"ve not seen you reference such "facts" - have you developed some new information or facts that show how this is possible?

And your "facts" that show there is a god? I see people playing metaphysics to show there is a god, tacit admission there isnt a fact to be found.

Or do you simply surmise, without facts, that these things could have appeared, so designed and functioning, that previously did not exist, without a cause, designer, or awesomely empowering intelligence?

And as SOME source HAD to pre-exist to cause all that exists,

Surmise, or fact? Your data?

you realize that it very well could be God. Or else something that self existed with God-like power and intelligence. How ELSE???!!!

I suppose a god is possible, though solving a big problem by introducing a bigger one doesnt suit me as being
very intellectual.

[abelcainsbrother]

The next paragraph says this:

WHAT IS GAP THEORY?

One example of the harmonistic approach between modern “science” and biblical faith is the so-called “Gap Theory.” Although there are numerous iterations of this idea, each of them suggests Genesis 1 contains a gap or multiple gaps in which can be squeezed the amount of time necessary to accommodate an Earth billions of years old. Although the biblical text does not require or even intimate such gaps, proponents of Gap Theory insist that the science requires it. In other words, they allow the tail to wag the dog, allowing “science” to trump plain biblical teaching.

We Gap Theorists go by what the word of God says first and then try to look into science to try to see if science fits,not the other way around. However,most Gap Theorists don't know enough about science to do this,they just teach what the bible says. The ones who do know about science have found ways the science fits from this interpretation perspective. However most everything in science is viewed from an evolution view point and so we must read between the lines when it comes to evidence and try to show how the evidence really does or is confirming the Gap Theory interpretation.

It is you doing what you're accusing us of doing - allow the tail to wag the dog when it comes to the science you go by,and your own opinions and beliefs.

It then goes on to say this:

Of course, for theists who claim to accept the biblical account of Creation, much is at stake. If Gap Theory is correct, then the Bible must be made to accommodate it. Since anyone with common sense and an English Bible would find it difficult to accept Gap Theory from the Genesis account alone, Gap theorists often transfer the debate to the mysterious world of Hebrew linguistics. Playing on the ignorance of the general Bible reader (and often revealing their own), Gap theorists insist the Hebrew terminology makes Gap Theory possible.

I do not believe you when you say if the Gap theory is correct,then the bible must be made to accomodate it. I think you have your mind made up and can always fall back on the excuse I'm saved and Jesus will sort it all out when we get to heaven thing. People in Young Earth Creationism have invested alot of time and effort into promoting a young earth and they don't want to change now.Even when they have not even made a dent in their "nemesis" evolution after everything they've threw at it.It won't be because of Young Earth Creationism if Evolution was to collapse,it will be based on its own merits or lack thereof.Creationism is actually in a crisis now too and Young Earth Creationism poses no threat to the theory of evolution now.

It has nothing to do with common sense,it has to do with what does God's word truly say,regardless of what man thinks or says and even what science says.The reason we transfer the debate to Hebrew is because the OT was translated from Hebrew into English and you people hide and lie about what certian words mean.You are teaching false things in order to promote your interpretation.Besides God gave us Hebrew and Greek concordances for bible study and they are tools to help us better understand God's word.And you shoud'nt be trying to hide behind just english if there is nothing to worry about. You should want to search it out yourself and find out who is right and who is wrong,but you don't. I bet you'd even hide behind a particular translation of the bible and just want to leave it at that,without really knowing for sure if you're wrong.

The Hebrew terminology does make the Gap Theory possible and I'm going to show you.And show how it is you doing what you're accusing us of doing - playing on the ignorance of the bible reader.It is you doing it,not us. You have a bad habit of accusing us of the things you do.

[Audie]

Trying to "fit" science to ideology is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

[abelcainsbrother]

Here is the next part :

I must admit: when I first encountered the arguments from biblical Hebrew to defend Gap Theory, I was confused. Even liberal Bible scholars do not use linguistic arguments to deny the literal understanding of Genesis 1. James Barr, a world-renowned Old Testament scholar, writes,

So far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) [sic] of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provide by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages of the Biblical story, and (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be worldwide, and to have extinguished all human and land animal life except for those in the ark (as quoted in Platinga, 2001, p. 217).

It took me alittle while to fully understand the Gap Theory but it did'nt confuse me.I just wanted to find out if it was right or not.That is probably why you and they reject the Gap Theory.They don't know what certian Hebrew words mean and only go by the English,but the samething is true for English as it is with Hebrew because it was translated from the Hebrew,so that even if you read it in English you still need to know the difference between certian words.
If James Barr was living before the 1970's he would be in the minority with his view when it comes to bible scholars. He has been saturated in Young Earth Creationism so much so that even the more modern translations of the bible reflect a Young earth Creationism bias. However the work done by Gap Theory bible theologians has stood the test of time and their influence is still around in the foot notes of these newer translations.Most people don't read the foot notes and so don't know or realize it.It is evidence that the majority of bible scholars/theologians were once Gap Theorists.

It has just changed since then because of the influence of Young Earth Creationism since about the 1970's after Henry Morris wrote his book called "The Genesis Flood" in 1961 which was based on Seventh Day Adventist doctrine that goes back to Ellen G White and the creation philosophy of George McCready Price,George McCready Price began teaching it in the 1930's and Henry Morris was later influenced by it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price
Mr Barr the bible tells us God made it in 6 days he did not create in the six days.Read Genesis 2:2.No where in the bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old,despite Ussher's chronology.We Gap Theorists believe it was 6-10,000 years ago when God MADE this world on the earth and he created man in his image.Gap Theorists do not reject a world wide flood when it comes to Noah's flood.However they have owned up to the scientific fact of how difficult it is to show a world wide flood happened,while young earth creationists have overlooked this and taught how it happened totally wrong to where it has caused many people to doubt it happened.Gap Theorists that know about science have came up with a much better and much more scientific approach to teach a world wide flood happened from a more true scientific perspective,even if it is not proof.. and they do not believe that most rock strata,mineral beds,coal and oil deposits were the result of Noah's flood but instead a pre-historic age since it was not the purpose of Noah's flood.But most Gap Theorists just believe it because God's word says it happened.

Next it says this :

These reasons explain why critical biblical scholarship tends to discuss the genre of Genesis 1-11, that is, whether it is intended to be history or mythology, whether it is literal or symbolic, whether it contains any truth or some truth. The meaning of the words themselves, however, is under no major dispute. But Gap theorists maintain the Creation account is both historical and (apparently) incomprehensible (at least, without the “expert” guidance of the Gap theorist). They insist the key to unlocking Genesis 1 is not what it does say, but what it doesn’t say. What a strange method of interpretation.

Critical biblical scholorship? We shall see.There is a key to understanding Genesis 1 and it it starts based on biblical study of Genesis 2:1-4,however I've never heard a Gap theorist insist it is not what it does say,but what it does'nt.I think it is people like ya'll who insist the bible says things, it does not say,like the earth is 6000 years old.What a strange method of interpretation.

[Philip]

Philip: And as SOME source HAD to pre-exist to cause all that exists

Audie: Surmise, or fact? Your data?

Audie, what are the choices of where everything came from - the things that came into being at the moment of the Big Bang?

A) They came into existence without cause or by themselves/were self-caused - which we know is impossible!

B) Something or things pre-existed that everything came from (or caused them) - and as a thing cannot create itself, then whatever pre-existed and that all physical things came from, HAD to be eternal. And they also had to be supremely intelligent, powerful, and purposeful.

C) A God, god or gods created the things the universe consists of, and whichever One or ones this included, had to be eternal. And He, it or they also had to be supremely intelligent, powerful, and purposeful.

So, Audie, what OTHER possibilities and their attributes are there?

Item "B" is the only choice for non-theists, and it as well requires things eternally existing. But NOT things without untold intelligence, capability, reasoning and immense power - as only some thing or things with these attributes could account for what came instantly into being at the moment of the Big Bang, as those things were in no way random - not in what showed up, and certainly not in how the elements had incredible design and functionality, propelled by awesome power. A thing doesn't just gain in intelligence without an intelligent cause. A group of rocks doesn't just get smart and organize by themselves, given enough time. And I doubt you believe that is possible either.

[Audie]

I didnt see any data

"I"ve not seen you reference such "facts" - have you developed some new information or facts that show how this is possible?"

[PaulSacramento]

Facts about the universe as we currently know them:

The universe started to expand ( called the Big Bang) about 13.7 Billion years ago.
We do NOT know what caused this expansion OR what was there, if anything, before it expanded.
Science believes a singularity of sorts is the cause of the big bang BUT doesn't know what caused the singularity ( a singularity is is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field of a celestial body become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system).
A singularity ( gravitational or spacetime) doesn't just happen NOR do they simply "decide" to expand so SOMETHING caused the change.
Science does NOT know what that was.
What we DO KNOW is that, as far as we do know, NOTHING that comes into being OR "changes" from what it is to something else ( move/change/etc) does so BY ITSELF.
It requires "something" other than itself to "move" from what it is ( actuality) to what it can be ( potentiality).

We know that the universe is still expanding and ever changing and we also know that for every action there is reaction.
We know the nothing can go back to infinite regress and we know, again, that nothing that comes into being can be the cause of itself coming into being.

So:
We know that the universe CAME into being via an expansion event called the big bang, whose source was a singularity event.
We know that the singularity even did NOT cause itself into being or cause itself to expand because it can't be the source of itself.

So, in short:

What Caused the Big Bang?'

Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience.

The solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause. There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space as we know it since, as stated above, it MUST come from outside.

[Philip]

Paul: We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space as we know it since, as stated above, it MUST come from outside.

So, again, this solution must ONLY include some thing or Being that is supremely intelligence, powerful and purposeful, and it HAS to be eternal. There just is no way around these parameters. Being incredibly intelligent and purposeful in the breath-taking things that were produced means this had to be a thinking BEING - else, we're back to theorizing that some non-living, eternal thing can produce and leverage intelligently designed things with enormous power - not random things of random chaos, but just the HIGHLY specific things of mind-blowing design and function. This takes applying great intelligence to phenomenal power. It means this entity (I say God) has a brain, thinks, and has purposeful intent for what it designed and created.

[Audie]

Paul: We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space as we know it since, as stated above, it MUST come from outside.

So, again, this solution must ONLY include some thing or Being that is supremely intelligence, powerful and purposeful, and it HAS to be eternal. There just is no way around these parameters. Being incredibly intelligent and purposeful in the breath-taking things that were produced means this had to be a thinking BEING - else, we're back to theorizing that some non-living, eternal thing can produce and leverage intelligently designed things with enormous power - not random things of random chaos, but just the HIGHLY specific things of mind-blowing design and function. This takes applying great intelligence to phenomenal power. It means this entity (I say God) has a brain, thinks, and has purposeful intent for what it designed and created.

Do you find that this is an opinion from physics, or metaphysics?

[abelcainsbrother]

He Spoke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ml9LWuMwBk

[Philip]

Audie: Do you find that this is an opinion from physics, or metaphysics?

Cold logic! If there is some attribute of what must have caused the universe that I've left out, please do tell - and those parameters exclude the question of God, as they are the hard, logical parameters of all we know to exist. There are not unlimited parameters for the source of the universe. You could argue for some unlimited possibilities as to the SOURCE of all things. But you cannot deny the parameters of that source, whatever and Whomever it might be.

Audie, do you believe that it's possible for ANY non-living, non-intelligent thing to:

- Create itself?

- Organize and design things - given enough time?

Remember, assuming there is no living intelligence (or intelligence at all), a non-intelligence can't learn, plan, design or organize itself or other things outside of itself. All it has is pure random chance - luck!

If a thing was never created or a derivative of something else, then it HAD to be eternal

Audie, do you not realize that whatever source of the universe, something had to be eternally existing, immensely powerful, supremely intelligent? Because if whatever produced the universe had no intelligence - had the brain of a rock - what you're saying is that a rock, given enough time and chances, could write and understand calculus, complex algebraic equations, could eventually apply them, create and manipulate other things of great sophistication, intelligence and APPLIED power. That's one dang smart rock!

Now, if the parameters I have suggested are "binary thinking" or exclude ANY known possibility that you've heard of or know about, please enlighten me. I'm not trying to prejudice this into some metaphysical box - precisely the opposite, as again, the parameters are what they are - whatever the potential source - it has certain parameters: Eternal, created, or a derivative of something prior. So, don't dismiss this as pure metaphysics or a red herring. Now, we're speaking only of what physically came into existence - so, if YOU say there is more that is inexplicable, then YOU are responding with a metaphysical answer - which is the term you like to dismiss "God" talk with: (Audie:) "This God you speak of, where is he, where's the proof - metaphysics is no answer." OK, so the hard parameters I speak of apply only to the physical realm and scientific things - so, if you are saying that the answer to the origins of things is BEYOND what we can know - guess where the realm of your answer lies: In METAPHYSICS!!!

So, show me a parameter I've ignored that isn't in the land of metaphysics.