Despite objections,why the Gap Theory is true.

[DBowling]

I challenge anybody who rejects the theory of Evolution to just try a honest good attempt with the Gap Theory for 6 months against evolution instead of the others and see yourself how much more effective it is than Young Earth Creationism,Intelligent Design,etc is against evolution.

Actually I've given the Gap Theory a whole lot more than six months.
We've been discussing the Gap Theory back and forth since December 2015.

I have listened to, studied, and responded to every assertion you have made, about the Gap Theory ... for over two years now.
And the failure of your argumentation boils down to two points.
The Gap Theory directly contradicts Scripture... in multiple places.
The fossil record and other scientific disciplines directly refute the claims of the Gap Theory.

The reason I reject Darwinistic Evolution is because it is incompatible with what we see in the fossil record and in the complexities of life today.
I reject the Gap Theory for similar reasons... The Gap theory is also incompatible with what we see in the fossil record. In addition the Gap Theory directly contradicts Scripture in multiple places.
I was raised YEC, but I rejected YEC for similar reasons that I reject the Gap Theory. YEC is inconsistent with multiple scientific disciplines and it makes many dogmatic unScriptural assertions about Scripture.

For me Progressive Creationism in general matches what we see in both the fossil record as well as what we find written in Scripture. And that is why I ended up embracing Progressive Creationism.
Now that does not mean I blindly follow what all Progressive Creationists say. I have a lot of respect for Hugh Ross, but his views on anthropology come into direct conflict with Scripture, archaeology, and history. So I am forced to reject Hugh Ross's views on anthropology even though I agree with him on a number of other issues.

The bottom line for me is...
Does an Origins Theory line up with Special Revelation (Scripture)
and
Does an Origins Theory line up with General Revelation (Science and History)
I reject the Gap Theory because it is contradicted by both.

[abelcainsbrother]

I challenge anybody who rejects the theory of Evolution to just try a honest good attempt with the Gap Theory for 6 months against evolution instead of the others and see yourself how much more effective it is than Young Earth Creationism,Intelligent Design,etc is against evolution.

Actually I've given the Gap Theory a whole lot more than six months.
We've been discussing the Gap Theory back and forth since December 2015.

I have listened to, studied, and responded to every assertion you have made, about the Gap Theory ... for over two years now.
And the failure of your argumentation boils down to two points.
The Gap Theory directly contradicts Scripture... in multiple places.
The fossil record and other scientific disciplines directly refute the claims of the Gap Theory.

The reason I reject Darwinistic Evolution is because it is incompatible with what we see in the fossil record and in the complexities of life today.
I reject the Gap Theory for similar reasons... The Gap theory is also incompatible with what we see in the fossil record. In addition the Gap Theory directly contradicts Scripture in multiple places.
I was raised YEC, but I rejected YEC for similar reasons that I reject the Gap Theory. YEC is inconsistent with multiple scientific disciplines and it makes many dogmatic unScriptural assertions about Scripture.

For me Progressive Creationism in general matches what we see in both the fossil record as well as what we find written in Scripture. And that is why I ended up embracing Progressive Creationism.
Now that does not mean I blindly follow what all Progressive Creationists say. I have a lot of respect for Hugh Ross, but his views on anthropology come into direct conflict with Scripture, archaeology, and history. So I am forced to reject Hugh Ross's views on anthropology even though I agree with him on a number of other issues.

The bottom line for me is...
Does an Origins Theory line up with Special Revelation (Scripture)
and
Does an Origins Theory line up with General Revelation (Science and History)
I reject the Gap Theory because it is contradicted by both.

Well for me it is similar in that I once was YEC also and no longer accept it.I have examined every creation position that I'm aware of and out of them all Gap Creationism is the most true out of them all.I have examined alot of the claims by critics of the Gap theory also and I find that when I looked into it to find out who was right about what they claimed it was Gap Creationists that were right and the critics wrong.

It made me cringe in some cases as to how a Christian could be so dishonest in his bias against the Gap Theory and claim things that are simply not true once I looked into it.I have yet to find anybody truthfully refute the Gap Theory eventhough they reject it and I cannot reject the Gap Theory when critics are teaching and claiming things that simply are not true about the Gap theory.To me their bias and dishonesty and anger is the problem,not the Gap Theory.

For example, critics will claim that in King James's time they did not know what it meant but that it has changed to mean only fill because the KJV says that God told man and woman to replenish the earth and they reject this eventhough it proves life once existed and is evidence the earth is old.

Yet I can read the KJV bible and see where the KJV translators translated it fill sometimes and they translated it replenish sometimes and so it is a lie from critics who claim that they did not know what it meant. I want to know how can a Christian be so dishonest about the things he is claiming because it is wrong to lie. It does not matter if you think the Gap Theory is wrong,it is still wrong to lie. This is just one example.

I too have alot of respect for Hugh Ross and I value his scientific knowledge when I want to know what is up in science but I cannot accept Day Age creationism over Gap Creationism.I cannot accept evolution because there is no credible mechanism for life evolving and so I cannot accept Theistic Evolution,so it is out. I have much more success when dealing with evolutionists than I ever did when I was YEC.I have actually defeated evolutionists in debates using the Gap Theory although when I'm online it can be kind of a problem to post evidence but I know I could and would destroy them in debate.

It is one thing to be unknowingly wrong about a biblical interpretation but my conscience is clear with the Lord and I know that I can stand before him and he know that I was honestly and truthfully seeking out the truth in his word without any bias or dishonesty.

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel ignores why a supposed massive event as destroying an initial earth is done without stated reasons and obvious clarification - as he must desperately read meanings into other unrelated passages to support it. Meanwhile, scientists everywhere are laughing at supposed evidences for a former world. And he also ignored progressive creation as a Scriptural-based answer that doesn't need evolution or all of his Scriptural sleight of hand or bad science!

That is because without evolution there isn't any real science model that explains all life. To refute it Abe has the GT, broken as it is and utterly unconvincing, but there it is. Sometimes I wonder if it's less about GT and more about refuting Evolution.

I made a thread a long time ago on here called the Gap Theory vs the Theory of Evolution and it is a place we can discuss it,if you'd like to.I'd like to try to show you why I reject the Theory of Evolution and instead believe a former world that lasted over billions of years perished leaving us all kinds of evidence that world did indeed exist and how the fossil record proves this former world existed and perished just like this interpretation claims.As a matter of fact any evolutionists or Theistic Evolutionists can meet my challenge.Let's discuss it if ya'll would like to. But leave your bias and anger out of it and come let us reason amongst the brethren.

[neo-x]

That is because without evolution there isn't any real science model that explains all life.

However, at every turn the processes of 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' have been demonstrated to be totally incapable of producing life as we know it today. And the starts and stops in the fossil record (particularly the Cambrian Explosion) also bear witness against the slow gradual processes presumed by Darwinism.

From my perspective, 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' alone are just as improbable (impossible) as the GAP theory when it comes to explaining what we see in the fossil record and in life today.

IMO, the Cambrian explosion can be understood if we take into account the rate of UV light that was hitting the earth at that time, with our atmosphere being different than it is today. Radiation like that can really boost mutation rates for all life forms. Hence, the rapid mutations might have led to rapid evolution.

Here's my problem with that premise...
It is inconsistent with a key premise of Darwinian Evolution... rare, small changes over a long period of time.

The reason that Darwinian Evolution requires small changes over long periods of time is that rapid macromutations result in deformity, sterility, and death.
So natural selection would eliminate, not perpetuate, life forms that result from rapid macromutations.

The examples of Darwinian Evolution that we can observe do involve small changes over time, just like Darwin indicated. But we can also observe the impact of macromutations on life forms, and the result of macromutations is deformity and death, not survival of the fittest.

That is why the Cambrian Explosion was such a problem for Darwin. During the Cambrian Explosion, anatomically complex life forms suddenly appear without any preceding simpler life forms. And the rate of change we see in life forms during the Cambrian Explosion far exceeds the "rare and modest" changes that Darwin himself said were keys for Darwinian Evolution.

So I disagree that the Darwinian Evolution model comes anywhere close to explaining the complexity of life forms today and the rate of change that we observe in the fossil record.

The only model that I am aware of that can explain the complexity of life today and the changes that we observe in the fossil record is the Romans 1:19-20 model.

9 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

That is not a valid objection, honestly. Why do you think 99 percent of all life that ever existed has perished? Because of their inability to adapt or mutate.

And what Darwin said really doesn't matter. It is quite understandable that higher mutations will lead to many possibilities. Too much evolution is bad and too little evolution is bad too. Both will lead to death and extinction. However if there was a time when uv light was mire on earth and caused too much mutation then in theory, as you say, it should have had led to death deformity etc. However, if the earths atmosphere developed during the same time as to block the amount of uv reaching earth overtime, the mutations would gradually come to a normal - it would slow down after a rapid period and would eventually sustain.

I think it's a good explanation imo for the Cambrian explosion. You could ofcourse disagree for many reasons. However, I was just pointing out that your particular objection wasn't really a problem.

[abelcainsbrother]

That is because without evolution there isn't any real science model that explains all life.

However, at every turn the processes of 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' have been demonstrated to be totally incapable of producing life as we know it today. And the starts and stops in the fossil record (particularly the Cambrian Explosion) also bear witness against the slow gradual processes presumed by Darwinism.

From my perspective, 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' alone are just as improbable (impossible) as the GAP theory when it comes to explaining what we see in the fossil record and in life today.

IMO, the Cambrian explosion can be understood if we take into account the rate of UV light that was hitting the earth at that time, with our atmosphere being different than it is today. Radiation like that can really boost mutation rates for all life forms. Hence, the rapid mutations might have led to rapid evolution.

Here's my problem with that premise...
It is inconsistent with a key premise of Darwinian Evolution... rare, small changes over a long period of time.

The reason that Darwinian Evolution requires small changes over long periods of time is that rapid macromutations result in deformity, sterility, and death.
So natural selection would eliminate, not perpetuate, life forms that result from rapid macromutations.

The examples of Darwinian Evolution that we can observe do involve small changes over time, just like Darwin indicated. But we can also observe the impact of macromutations on life forms, and the result of macromutations is deformity and death, not survival of the fittest.

That is why the Cambrian Explosion was such a problem for Darwin. During the Cambrian Explosion, anatomically complex life forms suddenly appear without any preceding simpler life forms. And the rate of change we see in life forms during the Cambrian Explosion far exceeds the "rare and modest" changes that Darwin himself said were keys for Darwinian Evolution.

So I disagree that the Darwinian Evolution model comes anywhere close to explaining the complexity of life forms today and the rate of change that we observe in the fossil record.

The only model that I am aware of that can explain the complexity of life today and the changes that we observe in the fossil record is the Romans 1:19-20 model.

9 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

That is not a valid objection, honestly. Why do you think 99 percent of all life that ever existed has perished? Because of their inability to adapt or mutate.

And what Darwin said really doesn't matter. It is quite understandable that higher mutations will lead to many possibilities. Too much evolution is bad and too little evolution is bad too. Both will lead to death and extinction. However if there was a time when uv light was mire on earth and caused too much mutation then in theory, as you say, it should have had led to death deformity etc. However, if the earths atmosphere developed during the same time as to block the amount of uv reaching earth overtime, the mutations would gradually come to a normal - it would slow down after a rapid period and would eventually sustain.

I think it's a good explanation imo for the Cambrian explosion. You could ofcourse disagree for many reasons. However, I was just pointing out that your particular objection wasn't really a problem.

It does matter what Darwin said also because he has never been confirmed correct about his evolution assumptions and yet the theory of evolution was not falsified and they and you are still using the same arguments and evidence Darwin used to sell the idea life evolves. Like for instance,Darwin convinced the world that the small variations in the beaks of his finches,in other words normal variation amongst the populations,but Darwin insisted that these small variations can add up generation after generation ad infinitum until one kind of creature evolves into a new and totally different kind of creature. And yet today you as an evolutionist use this very same thing for evidence life evolving while assuming the rest is true without any evidence.

Like for instance scientists in the lab will observe normal variations amongst the populations of viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,salamanders,rats,etc and tell you this is life evolving and you believe them. This is the same evidence Darwin used to sell the idea life evolves to the world 160 years ago and yet scientists are still using the same evidence Darwin did for evidence life evolves,while throwing Darwin under the bus.

This is why I say there is no credibile mechanism for life evolving and since there is not a credibile mechanism but only normal variations amongst the populations they call both micro and macro-evolution it means they can never demonstrate things like natural selection,random DNA copying errors,genetic mutations,genetic drift,etc can never be demonstrated to work as scientists claim they do to cause life to evolve.The evidence would just show that they just produce normal variation amongst the populations or that kinds produce after their kinds like the bible says and that life does not evolve and that they are just evolution myths.

[DBowling]

That is because without evolution there isn't any real science model that explains all life.

However, at every turn the processes of 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' have been demonstrated to be totally incapable of producing life as we know it today. And the starts and stops in the fossil record (particularly the Cambrian Explosion) also bear witness against the slow gradual processes presumed by Darwinism.

From my perspective, 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' alone are just as improbable (impossible) as the GAP theory when it comes to explaining what we see in the fossil record and in life today.

IMO, the Cambrian explosion can be understood if we take into account the rate of UV light that was hitting the earth at that time, with our atmosphere being different than it is today. Radiation like that can really boost mutation rates for all life forms. Hence, the rapid mutations might have led to rapid evolution.

Here's my problem with that premise...
It is inconsistent with a key premise of Darwinian Evolution... rare, small changes over a long period of time.

The reason that Darwinian Evolution requires small changes over long periods of time is that rapid macromutations result in deformity, sterility, and death.
So natural selection would eliminate, not perpetuate, life forms that result from rapid macromutations.

The examples of Darwinian Evolution that we can observe do involve small changes over time, just like Darwin indicated. But we can also observe the impact of macromutations on life forms, and the result of macromutations is deformity and death, not survival of the fittest.

That is why the Cambrian Explosion was such a problem for Darwin. During the Cambrian Explosion, anatomically complex life forms suddenly appear without any preceding simpler life forms. And the rate of change we see in life forms during the Cambrian Explosion far exceeds the "rare and modest" changes that Darwin himself said were keys for Darwinian Evolution.

So I disagree that the Darwinian Evolution model comes anywhere close to explaining the complexity of life forms today and the rate of change that we observe in the fossil record.

The only model that I am aware of that can explain the complexity of life today and the changes that we observe in the fossil record is the Romans 1:19-20 model.

9 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

That is not a valid objection, honestly. Why do you think 99 percent of all life that ever existed has perished? Because of their inability to adapt or mutate.

Two different issues...
1. Extinction events involve some kind of change to a viable life form's environment that the viable life form is unable to adapt to and therefore the life form in question is not able to survive in the new environment.
2. Macromutations are specific mutations that occur to a specific individual life form. And Biologists (and Darwin himself) have observed the impact of macromutations on individual life forms, and the observed result of macromutations is not viability. The observed result of macromutations is deformity, sterility, and death. Darwin knew that. Which is why Darwinian Evolution requires "rare and modest" mutations.

The problem with Darwinistic Evolution is that through animal breeding and scientific experimentation we have a pretty good idea of the scope, rate, and viability of the changes that the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing.

It is quite understandable that higher mutations will lead to many possibilities. Too much evolution is bad and too little evolution is bad too. Both will lead to death and extinction. However if there was a time when uv light was mire on earth and caused too much mutation then in theory, as you say, it should have had led to death deformity etc. However, if the earths atmosphere developed during the same time as to block the amount of uv reaching earth overtime, the mutations would gradually come to a normal - it would slow down after a rapid period and would eventually sustain.

I'm not following you...
It appears to me that you are contradicting yourself, so I'm obviously missing what you are saying.

Here's what I think you are saying...
1. You agree that too much mutation causes death and deformity
2. You propose that some environmental change caused mutations to increase during the Cambrian Explosion.
3. Then the environment changed again which caused mutations to return to a "normal" rate.

The problem with that premise is the increased rate and scope of mutations that would occur in an environment of rapid mutations would result in macromutations, the kind of mutations that lead to deformity and death. This would actually end up decreasing (not increasing) the "normal" rate of viable mutations that we see in the fossil record. So if mutations were increased during the Cambrian Explosion that would result in fewer viable mutations and fewer observable changes in the fossil record instead of the dramatic increase that we do see in the fossil record.

Darwin knew that the Cambrian Explosion was a problem for his theory.
And as Science discovers more and more about the scope, speed, and genetic limits of Darwinistic Evolution, these new discoveries just confirm that the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of producing what we see in either the fossil record or in the biological structure of life today.

[neo-x]

I disagree Dbowling# and we don't have to agree. I have been over these issues many times before and just not interested to engage in lengthy debate. Good day.

[Philip]

IF evolution occurred, it was a God-guided process that depended entirely upon God's miraculous hand. God never changes! He knows all things and always has! He knew He would one day establish the earth and populate it with all manner creatures and man. This required a deliberate and always known sequence of actions resulting in a populated planet. God created precisely what He wanted and when, FOREknowing perfectly all that it would include, their times, order, and sequences - no matter the mechanisms involved to make these incredible things into a reality.

There has never been ANYTHING random about God creating what He ALWAYS had foreknown every detail about. And so nothing has ever existed that was an accident or not completely under His perfect control. In fact, it is impossible for anything to exist that its origins, end results, and God's purposes for it were not foreknown and enacted exactly as He foresaw things before they ever existed! To not realize this is to deny the eternal and all-knowing and all-powerful attributes of God. God cannot foresee ANYTHING that will one day become a reality, or other than exactly as He planned it. Nothing can have any aspect of it that God didn't ALWAYS desire.

So, ultimately, GOD is the mechanism behind all that exists. He's always known of His precise plans for this universe, and of the earth and men He would one day also come to die for. So, if evolution was God's flow but supernaturally driven process, then what would otherwise be impossible from blind, random processes would not be a problem. But while God does use supernaturally driven but (to us, apparently normative / as He establishes them) processes t create over time, He can bypass those processes He miraculously put into play anytime He so desires. Look at the moment time and the universe began, at the Big Bang - from nothing or any previously existing physical components or processes, He INSTANTLY spoke a universe into existence, with all of the building blocks He would then shape through miraculously created mechanisms and processes which He established as the normative way in which things would function and interact.

No, God can only create what He's always known and precisely as He wants it to become. Things, at their creation, have the seeds and parameters of their intended end results already built in. And, of course, our world and universe's intended story arc will end in precisely the way God has always perfectly known about, when, and exactly as He desires. So, God didn't need evolution to create man, beasts, or plants and trees! But IF that is the mechanism He used (of course I don't believe that), then He drove the entire process. The question is, given the incredible supernatural abilities of God's perfect control, and the many evidences of the record, DID He use evolution?

[neo-x]

Evolution can never be guided.

[RickD]

Evolution can never be guided.

In light of the fact that you believe in God, could you explain what you mean?

Don't you believe that God ultimately set up the mechanisms that allow evolution to happen?

Edit:
In other words, if one believes in evolution, and that God is the creator and sustainer, then one believes that God guided evolution, right?

[neo-x]

Evolution can never be guided.

In light of the fact that you believe in God, could you explain what you mean?

Don't you believe that God ultimately set up the mechanisms that allow evolution to happen?

Edit:
In other words, if one believes in evolution, and that God is the creator and sustainer, then one believes that God guided evolution, right?

I wouldn't put it like that. It has not to do with god but the idea of evolution itself. The same way God can't make a squared-circle, is the same way evolution can't be guided. It's an absurdity. If evolution is guided then by definition it is not evolution; it's creation.

[RickD]

Evolution can never be guided.

In light of the fact that you believe in God, could you explain what you mean?

Don't you believe that God ultimately set up the mechanisms that allow evolution to happen?

Edit:
In other words, if one believes in evolution, and that God is the creator and sustainer, then one believes that God guided evolution, right?

I wouldn't put it like that. It has not to do with god but the idea of evolution itself. The same way God can't make a squared-circle, is the same way evolution can't be guided. It's an absurdity. If evolution is guided then by definition it is not evolution; it's creation.

That makes no sense to me. Could you expound on that?

[neo-x]

Evolution can never be guided.

In light of the fact that you believe in God, could you explain what you mean?

Don't you believe that God ultimately set up the mechanisms that allow evolution to happen?

Edit:
In other words, if one believes in evolution, and that God is the creator and sustainer, then one believes that God guided evolution, right?

I wouldn't put it like that. It has not to do with god but the idea of evolution itself. The same way God can't make a squared-circle, is the same way evolution can't be guided. It's an absurdity. If evolution is guided then by definition it is not evolution; it's creation.

That makes no sense to me. Could you expound on that?

Guided evolution is an absurdity. Evolution is random. If God intervened than it is not evolution. It is creation. It's very straightforward. Introducing an idea of divine intervention changes the meaning of evolution as it is defined. We can't take scientific terms like that and redefine them.

[DBowling]

Evolution can never be guided.

In light of the fact that you believe in God, could you explain what you mean?

Don't you believe that God ultimately set up the mechanisms that allow evolution to happen?

Edit:
In other words, if one believes in evolution, and that God is the creator and sustainer, then one believes that God guided evolution, right?

I wouldn't put it like that. It has not to do with god but the idea of evolution itself. The same way God can't make a squared-circle, is the same way evolution can't be guided. It's an absurdity. If evolution is guided then by definition it is not evolution; it's creation.

That makes no sense to me. Could you expound on that?

I think the definition of "evolution" is what neo-x is getting at.

The classic definition of evolution involves the following:
- common descent
- random mutation
- natural selection

If the evolutionary principle of "random mutation" is replaced with another process such as "guided mutation" or "intelligent addition of new genetic information into the DNA" then by definition the process being described is no longer evolution.

[RickD]

Evolution can never be guided.

In light of the fact that you believe in God, could you explain what you mean?

Don't you believe that God ultimately set up the mechanisms that allow evolution to happen?

Edit:
In other words, if one believes in evolution, and that God is the creator and sustainer, then one believes that God guided evolution, right?

I wouldn't put it like that. It has not to do with god but the idea of evolution itself. The same way God can't make a squared-circle, is the same way evolution can't be guided. It's an absurdity. If evolution is guided then by definition it is not evolution; it's creation.

That makes no sense to me. Could you expound on that?

Guided evolution is an absurdity. Evolution is random. If God intervened than it is not evolution. It is creation. It's very straightforward. Introducing an idea of divine intervention changes the meaning of evolution as it is defined. We can't take scientific terms like that and redefine them.

I understand what you're saying. But what started the process of evolution? Didn't God guide[direct or have an influence on the course of action of (someone or something)] evolution?

As a theist who believes in evolution, you have to believe in creation as well. There's no avoiding that. Someone or something had to start evolution. Someone had to create whatever began to exist, so it could evolve, right?