Adam has to be real.

[abelcainsbrother]

I can't wait until we get to heaven and Jesus himself tells Jac I was right.

acb, this is childish, please don't go this route, don't bring Jesus in to your argument. What if you're wrong ?

not to mention... eternity is a long time to wait !

We all cannot be right. Somebody is wrong.I believe the Gap Theory is the true interpretation and I have defended it. Jac did not refute it,he just rejected it. I have been nice this whole debate. I have not judged anybody. I have only tried to show why the Gap Theory is true biblically.

Of course Jac refuted it. He showed numerous times, why the verses you interpret a certain way to back the Gap Theory, are wrongly interpreted to mean what you want them to mean.

And for the love of intellectual honesty ACB, please stop saying that you take God's word over man's. It's man's interpretation that you are holding to, to back the Gap Theory.

You completely fail to understand that YOUR INTERPRETATION is not equal to God's word. Your interpretation is as potentially fallible as any other interpretation. And it becomes even more fallible, when you are shown why it's wrong. And then, you still don't acknowledge what you are shown.

And Jac is not appealing to consensus, when he tells you that no scholars interpret scripture to make it fit into the Gap Theory. He's telling you that nobody interprets it that way, so maybe you'll understand that among scholars, the Gap Theory is a joke. It's not considered a valid creation theory by any reputable scholars anymore. And the fact that you know that, and STILL hold to it, says a lot about your intellectual honesty regarding this subject.

And please don't take my bluntness as anything more than my attempt to help you understand that you need to rethink your allegiance to the gap theory.

Rick that is just appealing to majority.I understand what Jac explained but he changed the meaning of katabole.I just stuck to the definition. If Jac showed me biblically why it is wrong I would change my mind,but he did'nt. He got angry with me,while I never did. I was nice through the whole debate.I understand he rejects it and thinks it is silly but he has not refuted it,he only appealed to the majority of bible scholars and what they believe.If anybody got out of line it was him,which is why I tried to calm him down.

[Storyteller]

Of all the questions I can imagine God asking us, our creation stance was never one of them.
I don't think, really, anyone, least of all God, cares.

[RickD]

Of all the questions I can imagine God asking us, our creation stance was never one of them.
I don't think, really, anyone, least of all God, cares.

Of course he cares. Didn't you read ACB's post? It said that Jesus was a Gap Theorist!

[RickD]

I can't wait until we get to heaven and Jesus himself tells Jac I was right.

acb, this is childish, please don't go this route, don't bring Jesus in to your argument. What if you're wrong ?

not to mention... eternity is a long time to wait !

We all cannot be right. Somebody is wrong.I believe the Gap Theory is the true interpretation and I have defended it. Jac did not refute it,he just rejected it. I have been nice this whole debate. I have not judged anybody. I have only tried to show why the Gap Theory is true biblically.

Of course Jac refuted it. He showed numerous times, why the verses you interpret a certain way to back the Gap Theory, are wrongly interpreted to mean what you want them to mean.

And for the love of intellectual honesty ACB, please stop saying that you take God's word over man's. It's man's interpretation that you are holding to, to back the Gap Theory.

You completely fail to understand that YOUR INTERPRETATION is not equal to God's word. Your interpretation is as potentially fallible as any other interpretation. And it becomes even more fallible, when you are shown why it's wrong. And then, you still don't acknowledge what you are shown.

And Jac is not appealing to consensus, when he tells you that no scholars interpret scripture to make it fit into the Gap Theory. He's telling you that nobody interprets it that way, so maybe you'll understand that among scholars, the Gap Theory is a joke. It's not considered a valid creation theory by any reputable scholars anymore. And the fact that you know that, and STILL hold to it, says a lot about your intellectual honesty regarding this subject.

And please don't take my bluntness as anything more than my attempt to help you understand that you need to rethink your allegiance to the gap theory.

Rick that is just appealing to majority.I understand what Jac explained but he changed the meaning of katabole.I just stuck to the definition. If Jac showed me biblically why it is wrong I would change my mind,but he did'nt. He got angry with me,while I never did. I was nice through the whole debate.I understand he rejects it and thinks it is silly but he has not refuted it,he only appealed to the majority of bible scholars and what they believe.If anybody got out of line it was him,which is why I tried to calm him down.

1) Jac didn't appeal to authority. If he said that the gap theory is wrong because no scholar believes it to be true, then that would be appealing to authority. A logical fallacy. I suggest you re read what he wrote, because that's not what he was saying.
2) Jac DID show you biblically, why the gap theory can't hold water, if we are to go by what the biblical text actually says.
3) he didn't appeal to the majority of scholars, to show the gap theory isn't biblical. He mentioned that no biblical scholar believes in the gap theory, to show you that none of them take it seriously. And that should tell you something. But you're not seeing it.

[abelcainsbrother]

acb, this is childish, please don't go this route, don't bring Jesus in to your argument. What if you're wrong ?

not to mention... eternity is a long time to wait !

We all cannot be right. Somebody is wrong.I believe the Gap Theory is the true interpretation and I have defended it. Jac did not refute it,he just rejected it. I have been nice this whole debate. I have not judged anybody. I have only tried to show why the Gap Theory is true biblically.

Of course Jac refuted it. He showed numerous times, why the verses you interpret a certain way to back the Gap Theory, are wrongly interpreted to mean what you want them to mean.

And for the love of intellectual honesty ACB, please stop saying that you take God's word over man's. It's man's interpretation that you are holding to, to back the Gap Theory.

You completely fail to understand that YOUR INTERPRETATION is not equal to God's word. Your interpretation is as potentially fallible as any other interpretation. And it becomes even more fallible, when you are shown why it's wrong. And then, you still don't acknowledge what you are shown.

And Jac is not appealing to consensus, when he tells you that no scholars interpret scripture to make it fit into the Gap Theory. He's telling you that nobody interprets it that way, so maybe you'll understand that among scholars, the Gap Theory is a joke. It's not considered a valid creation theory by any reputable scholars anymore. And the fact that you know that, and STILL hold to it, says a lot about your intellectual honesty regarding this subject.

And please don't take my bluntness as anything more than my attempt to help you understand that you need to rethink your allegiance to the gap theory.

Rick that is just appealing to majority.I understand what Jac explained but he changed the meaning of katabole.I just stuck to the definition. If Jac showed me biblically why it is wrong I would change my mind,but he did'nt. He got angry with me,while I never did. I was nice through the whole debate.I understand he rejects it and thinks it is silly but he has not refuted it,he only appealed to the majority of bible scholars and what they believe.If anybody got out of line it was him,which is why I tried to calm him down.

1) Jac didn't appeal to authority. If he said that the gap theory is wrong because no scholar believes it to be true, then that would be appealing to authority. A logical fallacy. I suggest you re read what he wrote, because that's not what he was saying.
2) Jac DID show you biblically, why the gap theory can't hold water, if we are to go by what the biblical text actually says.
3) he didn't appeal to the majority of scholars, to show the gap theory isn't biblical. He mentioned that no biblical scholar believes in the gap theory, to show you that none of them take it seriously. And that should tell you something. But you're not seeing it.

Can you please show how he showed I was wrong about katabole? Because to me all he did was change the definition beceause he does'nt agree with it and because he claims no bible scholars accept it. He also lied,he slandered the Gap theory's history and claimed there is no evidence for it yet I did'nt even make much of a big deal about it. But I could've posted more evidence to show he's wrong.I was just having fun debating about it.

I already said I would go back over the greek to double check but as of right now Jac seems to be trying to silence me because I don't agree with him and I don't like changing the meaning of words like katabole because of what bible scholars say. Every Gap theorist learns real quick they are in the background being a Gap Theorist but the evidence outways the rejections to it that are not biblical.

[abelcainsbrother]

Of all the questions I can imagine God asking us, our creation stance was never one of them.
I don't think, really, anyone, least of all God, cares.

Of course he cares. Didn't you read ACB's post? It said that Jesus was a Gap Theorist!

Jesus did teach the Gap theory if katabole means the casting down of something in order to build something up which is what the definition says. It says laying down,casting down so I accept it.We Gap theorists know the former world was cast down in order for this world and katabole is evidence that both the hebrew and greek confirm the Gap Theory interpretation.

And we do have evidence for a former world,it is much of the same evidence evolutionists use for evidence. This is because this evidence was used by William Buckland in 1818 in Oxford,the very first Geology professor to teach Gap theory creationism and this was before evolution became a scientific theory. So we are just taking back our evidence from evolutionists that charles Darwin hyjacked for evolution.

[Storyteller]

acb?

Your faith is strong, you are steadfast, thats good.

But, stubborness is different.

The Gap theory isnt considered a viable theory, even I, as a new believer, can see that.

[abelcainsbrother]

acb?

Your faith is strong, you are steadfast, thats good.

But, stubborness is different.

The Gap theory isnt considered a viable theory, even I, as a new believer, can see that.

I understand. I'm not trying to force my views on anybody I'm just trying to show why I believe it.You can reject it and it won't bother me,but to me, it is the right one and I just like to debate/discuss the differences and if I'm ever shown wrong biblically I will change my mind as I have before. You should know that I admit when I'm wrong but I don't think I'm wrong about this.

I pray in time things change and the Gap Theory will finally get the recognition it deserves because I believe it is the answer to the crisis in creationism that has been overlooked and once the truth gets out the veil blinding people to the truth will come off and alot of decieved people will come to Christ. It could lead to a revival.For when Satan comes in like a flood the Spirit of the Lord will lift up a standard against him.

[Philip]

Abel: I understand. I'm not trying to force my views on anybody I'm just trying to show why I believe it.

OK, and you've done so - and then some!

Abel: You should know that I admit when I'm wrong but I don't think I'm wrong about this.

Abel, the problem is, YOU are unqualified to render an accurate understanding of the specifics of the Greek, not to mention the limitations imposed by ancient Hebrew rules of grammar. And we're not talking about some mere appeal to authority, but of an overwhelming consensus amongst a host of countless CHRISTIAN scholars - we're not speaking of just secularists or unbelievers, or only people whom embrace evolution. These are huge numbers of constantly praying, passionate Christians, who have trained and studied for years to earn doctorates - and who have poured over these texts and all of the related scholarship for many years of their lives. To suggest that "they just don't get it; they're mistaken" - wow, all this just to fit your supposed scientific understandings so as to refute evolution? This is just delusional. You act as if there is a giant conspiracy amongst Christian scholars who are all clueless. That should concern you.

Abel: "... once the truth gets out the veil blinding people to the truth will come off and a lot of deceived people will come to Christ. It could lead to a revival.For when Satan comes in like a flood the Spirit of the Lord will lift up a standard against him."

Abel, you need to understand that most people - in fact, VERY few, typically come to Christ because they see Scripture and science matching up. There is WAY too much uncertainty about the science of origins, and key UNKNOWABLE things about the Creation texts that also make definitively knowing about the mysteries of what came before Adam a current impossibility. If people had to FIRST reconcile these things in their minds before coming to Christ, NO one would do so. It's just not the big ticket to belief you seem to believe it to be.

Godless evolution IS EXTREMELY problematic - I'd say impossible. But, as many read allegory into those Creation passages, and yet are still passionate Christians, should show you that belief in evolution is not the big blockage to faith you might suppose. Mostly, where it is believed, amongst those whom assert that evolution refutes the possibility of God's existence or that it proves the Bible can't possibly be true - those who do this are merely using evolution as an excuse to avoid belief. Remember, the evolution argument solves absolutely nothing about how a universe suddenly "popped" into existence - OVER 10 BILLION years BEFORE there would have been conditions conducive to even simple life, much less Godless evolution. So, if one buys fully into evolution, they still must explain what happened at the Big Bang's beginning - a universe "pops" into existence with immense power, design, and begins organizing itself with amazing specificity and necessarily interactive, unfathomably complex components. EVERY person believing in evolution must explain it happening WITHOUT God, in fact, how everything that came into existence 10+ billion years before could have occurred.

So, Abel, evolution is just being used as an EXCUSE to avoid belief. Refute it totally and people will simply adopt another way to deny God - typically, it's, "well, there's just so much we don't yet know and we'll probably never be able to explain the origins of the universe" - meaning, they are happy to leave it at that - still going about their merry little atheistic/agnostic ways. So, don't delude yourself into thinking that, "If people would realize GAP Theory is true, then they'd believe evolution is false, and THEN they'd more likely believe; Then, there would probably be a great revival." It doesn't work like that, trust me! I've debated too many unbelieving evolutionists to realize this. Because once you can get them to acknowledge that evolution, IF true, is only a process that began over 10 billion years AFTER absolutely every physical thing and necessary parameter that, back then (before the Big Bang), didn't yet exist. But evolution doesn't/can't explain THAT. To a one, they all argue that we just don't have the proof, but somehow it happened uncaused and by itself - believe via - yep, you got it (faith!).

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel: I understand. I'm not trying to force my views on anybody I'm just trying to show why I believe it.

OK, and you've done so - and then some!

Abel: You should know that I admit when I'm wrong but I don't think I'm wrong about this.

Abel, the problem is, YOU are unqualified to render an accurate understanding of the specifics of the Greek, not to mention the limitations imposed by ancient Hebrew rules of grammar. And we're not talking about some mere appeal to authority, but of an overwhelming consensus amongst a host of countless CHRISTIAN scholars - we're not speaking of just secularists or unbelievers, or only people whom embrace evolution. These are huge numbers of constantly praying, passionate Christians, who have trained and studied for years to earn doctorates - and who have poured over these texts and all of the related scholarship for many years of their lives. To suggest that "they just don't get it; they're mistaken" - wow, all this just to fit your supposed scientific understandings so as to refute evolution? This is just delusional. You act as if there is a giant conspiracy amongst Christian scholars who are all clueless. That should concern you.

Abel: "... once the truth gets out the veil blinding people to the truth will come off and a lot of deceived people will come to Christ. It could lead to a revival.For when Satan comes in like a flood the Spirit of the Lord will lift up a standard against him."

Abel, you need to understand that most people - in fact, VERY few, typically come to Christ because they see Scripture and science matching up. There is WAY too much uncertainty about the science of origins, and key UNKNOWABLE things about the Creation texts that also make definitively knowing about the mysteries of what came before Adam a current impossibility. If people had to FIRST reconcile these things in their minds before coming to Christ, NO one would do so. It's just not the big ticket to belief you seem to believe it to be.

Godless evolution IS EXTREMELY problematic - I'd say impossible. But, as many read allegory into those Creation passages, and yet are still passionate Christians, should show you that belief in evolution is not the big blockage to faith you might suppose. Mostly, where it is believed, amongst those whom assert that evolution refutes the possibility of God's existence or that it proves the Bible can't possibly be true - those who do this are merely using evolution as an excuse to avoid belief. Remember, the evolution argument solves absolutely nothing about how a universe suddenly "popped" into existence - OVER 10 BILLION years BEFORE there would have been conditions conducive to even simple life, much less Godless evolution. So, if one buys fully into evolution, they still must explain what happened at the Big Bang's beginning - a universe "pops" into existence with immense power, design, and begins organizing itself with amazing specificity and necessarily interactive, unfathomably complex components. EVERY person believing in evolution must explain it happening WITHOUT God, in fact, how everything that came into existence 10+ billion years before could have occurred.

So, Abel, evolution is just being used as an EXCUSE to avoid belief. Refute it totally and people will simply adopt another way to deny God - typically, it's, "well, there's just so much we don't yet know and we'll probably never be able to explain the origins of the universe" - meaning, they are happy to leave it at that - still going about their merry little atheistic/agnostic ways. So, don't delude yourself into thinking that, "If people would realize GAP Theory is true, then they'd believe evolution is false, and THEN they'd more likely believe; Then, there would probably be a great revival." It doesn't work like that, trust me! I've debated too many unbelieving evolutionists to realize this. Because once you can get them to acknowledge that evolution, IF true, is only a process that began over 10 billion years AFTER absolutely every physical thing and necessary parameter that, back then (before the Big Bang), didn't yet exist. But evolution doesn't/can't explain THAT. To a one, they all argue that we just don't have the proof, but somehow it happened uncaused and by itself - believe via - yep, you got it (faith!).

It must seem like I'm trying to force my interpretation because I like to debate and discuss these issues and so I come off like its all I care about,its not. I just believe it is true and so I try to defend it and I have went back over certian discussions and I don't see how I was refuted biblically. Every point I've made I felt like I defended it well. I think we'll have to agree to disagree about evolution and the way scientific minded people have been driven away from God and the bible and from what I've seen Theistic evolutionists cannot really change many minds from naturalistic evolution.. They tend to think it goes against what the bible says,suddenly they'll be explaining Genesis 1 to you. Now am I saying nobody is ever won over? No,I'm not,most every creation theory can point to some yet evolution is still there.

I mean I'm very interested in apologetics and I have watched so many debates where it was YEC's vs Evolution or Intelligent Design. Both of these movements grew into popular creation views and it was partly by going up against evolution,so why can't Gap Theory creationism? It worked for them and now they are popylar. Remember Michael Behe and Stephen Myers? I really like the ID movement but evolution is still here.The problem is that the debates always come down to a tie at best depending on who you choose to believe when they are concerning evolution,now pointing out a designer ID does really well in debates.

This is not meant to be an attack but just an observance over time and yet evolution is still here stronger than ever. It would not be had Gap theory creationism had been used instead because in most every debate the evolutionist would have been totally and soundly defeated by a much more believable theory with evidence to back it up.

You see even YEC's and Intelligent Designers are good at pointing out the flaws in evolution science,yet Gap theory creationism offers a much more believable theory plus explaining the flaws in evolution science. You can't tell me had this happened we would not have so many people believing in evolution. It would have been defeated long ago.

And it still can happen and once people see how bad evolutionists are beat by alot of their own evidence Gap theory creationism would be popular now and we would'nt have so many people rejecting God because of evolution. Probably very few Christians would have dropped Christianity from being fed the evolution althroughout school and college. at the very least evolution would have much more stiffer competition.

It would be confirming God's word true no different than when we point out fulfilled bible prophecies,etc for evidence with the bible which would produce faith in God but when people see that Christianity has threw everything it has at evolution and it has had very little effect it matters. the church has nothing to really offer to effect it especially for scientific minded people.

I can't prove it because it has been so long ago but in the 1980's in Universities Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists so bad in debates that they stopped debating knowledgable Gap Theorists because they were losing. They would debate other creation interpretations like YEC but not a knowledgable Gap Theorist. But because its been so long ago people don't know and doubt it because I think they see what has happened since then.

I myself have tested the Gap Theory out against evolution and I have had success alot more than YEC's do for example, no pun intended.And yet I am limited in evidence I know about but can't always show.So I mostly can just use fossils.

And yet evolutionists will actually start defending YEC all of a sudden and yet they can't stand creationists.The Gap Theory is much more effective than when I was a YEC. I wish I had a way to show more evidence though.

[DBowling]

Since we're still discussing the Gap Theory here... let me jump back in with a point that I brought up earlier.

The direct contradiction between the sequence of events claimed by the Gap Theory and the sequence of events explicitly presented by Scripture in Genesis 1.

There is no flood mentioned in Genesis 1:2. There is no world that was destroyed by a flood mentioned in Genesis 1:2. It's just not there in Scripture.
According to Scripture the earth was formed out of the waters after Genesis 1:2.
According to Scripture all plant life was created after Genesis 1:2
According to Scripture all animal life was created after Genesis 1:2
According to Scripture humans were created after Genesis 1:2.

There is no destruction of the world by a flood mentioned anywhere in Genesis 1:2. That assertion is an extraScriptural presupposition that has been invented to support a tradition.

The Gap Theory asserts that God made dry land appear before Genesis 1:2.
Scripture tells us that God made dry land appear after Genesis 1:2 (Genesis 1:9-10)

The Gap Theory asserts that God created vegetation before Genesis 1:2.
Scripture tells us that God created vegetation after Genesis 1:2. (Genesis 1:11-12)

The Gap Theory asserts that God created living creatures in the sea, air, and land before Genesis 1:2.
Scripture tells us that God created living creatures in the sea, air, and land after Genesis 1:2. (Genesis 1:20-25)

We have already discussed at length how the Gap Theory misrepresents what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:6, but I haven't seen any response yet to the direct contradiction between the sequence of events asserted by the Gap Theory and the sequence of events presented by Scripture in Genesis 1.

In Christ

[Jac3510]

Correct, DB. Another problem with a Gen 1:2 flood is that it undercuts itself. So GTs want us to look at fossils as evidence of a world destroyed by "Lucifer's Flood." The implications of this are huge and point out yet another reason no one takes it seriously. So one of the supposedly strong points of the gap theory is that it accomodates the science of geology specifically in terms of long geologic ages. Now pause just a second. Where does geology get its argument that the earth is four billion years old? From sediment laters and various radiometric dating methods. And how to YECs get around (or try to get around) that science? By appeal to a global flood. But if there was a global flood in Gen 1:2 that explains all the fossils and sediment layers then there is no longer a basis to claim that the earth is very old. That's trying to eat your cake and have it, too. You can't on the one hand appeal to geological uniformitarianism to say that the earth is four billion years old and then turn around and appeal to the catastrophism of a global deluge to explain the same evidence. You just don't get to do that. That's an internal contradiction of the interpretation of the evidence. Either the fossils and sediment layers were deposited there by millions of years of relentless geological forces or else they were deposited there quickly by a major event like a global flood. You can't have it both ways.

Still further, if you insist on a global flood to explain that evidence (and thereby undercut the main appeal of the theory, which is to accomodate geology), then you are left with the problem of Noah's flood. All of the evidence for a global flood doesn't point to Genesis 7 but Genesis 1. GTs literally have to say that Noah's global flood left no trace. And that, of course, is about as stupid a claim as you can make. And so the most prominent gap theorists did not make that claim but instead defended a local flood. To be clear: gap theorists are required by the logic of their own position to hold that Noah's flood was a local event (so see Custance's paper, "The Flood, Local or Global?" in The Doorway Papers, 1970).

Now, there's nothing wrong with defending a local flood. But ask yourself this: suppose the Bible actually does teach that there was a global flood (as GTs maintain). Is the textual evidence for that stronger for that flood happening during the life of Noah or before Adam? I think it goes without saying that if there was a global flood, you'd have to do some seriously mental gymnastics to conclude that there is more textual evidence for a preAdamic global flood than a Noahic global flood! So then you have to ask yourself, on what basis would gappers take the (significantly) weaker position? And the answer to that should be obvious: it's just standard eisogesis and reading into the text.

When you add to that the problems you cited, the idea of a Gen 1:2 flood is actually one of the most significant weaknesses textually and conceptually that plagues the gap "theory." And all of that before you start to look at the actual grammar of Gen 1:2, which precludes both a gap or local flood. There's a reason that the few remaining gappers are untrained and all appeal to 1970s literature and grasp at straws like we see in this thread.

--------------------------------

I know that this thread got hijacked by the gap discussion, but I do hope that winner considers what I considered to be sound advice earlier and just forget all of this nonsense. We would do--and actually do!--far better to point unbelivers to the real evidence (historical and textual) for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than we do trying to engage in any sort of creation apologetics. Because even if you succeed in showing that the world was created and therefore that there is a god, still nothing follows in terms of faith in Christ. It doesn't even make faith in Christ any easier! (If it did, every first century Jew and Muslim who has ever lived would be Christian.) No, the issue is, always has been, always will be, and only is Jesus' resurrection. Because if you believe THAT, then it's much easier to discuss any sort of creation model you like.

[Philip]

Now THAT, Jac, was helpful!

Emotionalism over this issue is not only unproductive but hurtful. Sometimes a person is so entrenched emotionally in a view, that untangling themselves from it is exceptionally difficult - and more so the longer length of time they've held that view. Are they wrong - very possibly, sometimes definitely. Do they have a huge problem at being objective - yes. Are they just a bad sort because they can't seem to accept or learn from criticism of their belief? No, but their stubborn resistance can be very off-putting to others. And so it goes.

[abelcainsbrother]

Here is why I think you all are wrong. One verse can prove you all wrong I think. You all teach all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation.You are are scoffer the bible predicted in the last days no pun intended. Here read this and believe God's word instead of your creation theory.

2nd Peter 3:3-4 "Knowing this first,that there shall come in the last days scoffers,walking after their own lusts,And saying,Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep/died all things continue as they were fromthe beginning of the creation."

You all say this because you have been influenced by something that causes you to believe it no matter how old you think the earth is whether 6-10,000 years or billions of years I can tell you that any creaytion interpretation that teaches all things have gone on continually since the beginning of the creation is wrong,no matter how much they scoff and plead it does.

So why do you believe it? You see you all scoff at me yet I'm going by God's word. I reject any creation theory that teaches all things have continued as they were since the beginning of the creation that would be Genesis 1:1 and this is why evolution is wrong too. I know that there was a break or a gap of time where it stopped since the beginning and it was between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2. There is nowhere else we can put a break or a gap since the beginning biblically and not even Noah's flood was a gap,even if you try to stick Noah's flood whether it was a local flood or global here for your gap you are forced to believe all things continued on since the beginning of the creation. But this is wrong.

[RickD]

ACB,

Those verses is probably talking about those who deny supernaturalism. None of us hold to a strictly uniformitarianism view. So your argument is baseless.