Evidence for God from Science

There are some that say the Gap theory is discredited, others not, others say YEC, and others OEC, Does it really matter?

Listen again to the principle mentioned in: 1 Co 3:3 NKJV ...

God created and so be it. Jesus came and saved - so be it.

Does God love YEC's more than those who hold to Gap? Does God favor YEC-sters over OEC-ist?

I think it does matter as it is important to get it right I know God loves us all and this is not a salvation issue but if the Gap theory is true biblically it should not be ignored by the church like it has been.Christians don't know about the Gap theory as it is the least known about and part of the frustration is that Gap theorists have tried to reach out to brothers in Christ to spread the word and have been shot down,ridiculed,etc.

It is very important that we make sure and test everything before we just denounce it and this has not been done.Why does young earth creationism get a pass? because it is the most popular amongst protestants?

Plus a strong case can be made about how young earth creationism has actually turned people away from the bible based on science despite the good intentions to get them to believe it when it is not necessary.

And a strong case could be made that if the church was teaching the Gap theory as fervently as it does young earth creationism evolution would not be so popular and would have much stiffer competition from both a biblical and scientific stand point.
-

Audie"Thing is, the fossil record clearly shows many "former worlds".
An assemblage of marine life from say the Devonian is very different from that of the Cambrian; the Permian ended with most species going extinct and the assemblage from the Triassic is again, very different. And so on.

A few "kinds" persist thro the ages. Oysters have hung on for a long time now, fortunately!

Its not correct to think of just one 'former world", at least, not by any geological data.

Not if the former world lasted for millions of years before it perished.I do think that certain life was in the former world and is in this world also.God created the beasts,creatures,etc after their kind for a reason.

B. W. wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

theophilus wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The Gap theory tells us there was a former world on this earth full of life but it perished in a flood(not Noah's flood)Genesis 1:2 and all life that existed in it perished until God created this world and everything after Genesis 1:3 was God creating this world about 6-10,000 years ago. The geological evidence of an old earth with the fossils,coal and oil testify to a former world that existed but evolutionists hijacked this evidence away from the church after evolution became so popular and the Gap theory was forgot about by the church.

I agree that the Gap theory is closer to the Bible than other Old Earth theories and I used to believe it but I have discovered on problem with it. If the fossils are left over from a destruction that took place before Genesis 1:3 what evidence is there for the flood in Noah's time? If the theory is right there should be two separate groups of fossils, those left by Noah's flood and a layer of fossils below them that were part of the original earth.

There is one thing that puzzles me. You are advocating the Gap theory but I checked your profile and you said there that you believe in Day-Age/Progressive creation.

It is not a problem for the Gap theory about Noah's flood as Gap theorists do not deny Noah's flood and I believe there is evidence for Noah's flood even if science overlooks it.However the sun was shining during Noah's flood and so a lot of life that died in it would've decayed away however I think Neanderthals can be said to be the descendants of Cain and they died in Noah's flood because it baffled secular scientists why Neanderthals died out and yet man lived but they fail to thank Noah and his family for building the ark.But when the former world perished God turned the stars off and this would flood the heavens with water and we have an ice age to work with scientifically.

It is weird because I have found much evidence right here on this web-sight that can be added to the Gap theory.Rich Deem is smart scientifically and if you dig in here you can find a lot of scientific biblical reasons to know and believe the heavens and earth are old,understand the fossils,primates,etc and kinda be both biblically and scientifically smart,this is why I like to look in all areas and try to pick out the good info and shun the bad stuff.I actually think we all have evidence and truth that each creation theory needs as young earth creationists have some truth,Gap theorists,old earthers and ID ers,etc.I don't think one side has all of the truth and if we could find a way to work together evolution which has caused a lot of good people to doubt God's word would have much more stiff competition.

When you make your profile they don't give the Gap theory option to click on and so I chose day/age/progressive creation because it is old earth creationism.

There are some that say the Gap theory is discredited, others not, others say YEC, and others OEC, Does it really matter?

Listen again to the principle mentioned in: 1 Co 3:3 NKJV ...

God created and so be it. Jesus came and saved - so be it.

Does God love YEC's more than those who hold to Gap? Does God favor YEC-sters over OEC-ist?
-
-
-

Possibly it matters if one is going about saying that God did things that He certainly did not do?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

theophilus wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is not a problem for the Gap theory about Noah's flood as Gap theorists do not deny Noah's flood and I believe there is evidence for Noah's flood even if science overlooks it.However the sun was shining during Noah's flood and so a lot of life that died in it would've decayed away

There is no "gap theory", that is a misuse of a scientific term to call it a theory.
There is a disproved hypothesis o nly.

Nobody is overlooking evidence, except for those who like to say there was a flood.
The data, evidence if you will, disproves the flood story.

Decay takes place night or day, in or out of water, btw.

The life would have been buried quickly with any chance to decay. That is the conditions required to produce fossils

.

How quickly? I can show you fossil bones that lay on the surface for over a year before being buried. And I can show you how you can tell how long it was. Or look at this
dinosaur mummy, for all the world like those photos you see of a dead dried out cow in the desert.

This can only happen if they are frozen because the Gap theory teaches God turned the stars and sun off or the heavens became black.This is why wooly mammoths were frozen solid while they were eating.

i noticed your concern with the 'gap theory' being ridiculed.

What do you expect?

A dead camel can only become a mummy if its frozen? Bones that show the characteristic weathering pattern of lying on the ground for two years only look that way because they were frozen? Come now.

You are basing your gap theory on things a school child can see are silly?

This can only happen if they are frozen


Really? Look at this and think a bit more.




.the former world probably fully perished at the ice age until this world was created.

The vast majority of species alive before the ice age are still with us.

There are a few dozen specimens of frozen wooly mammoths. Most of them are just pieces, many show signs of having been scavenged before burial, all are in various states of decay. Are you saying they were flash frozen?

i noticed your concern with the 'gap theory' being ridiculed.

What do you expect?

A dead camel can only become a mummy if its frozen? Bones that show the characteristic weathering pattern of lying on the ground for two years only look that way because they were frozen? Come now.

You are basing your gap theory on things a school child can see are silly?

This can only happen if they are frozen


Really? Look at this and think a bit more.

Dead things cannot lay out in the elements and not decay away.

.the former world probably fully perished at the ice age until this world was created.

The vast majority of species alive before the ice age are still with us.

There are a few dozen specimens of frozen wooly mammoths. Most of them are just pieces, many show signs of having been scavenged before burial, all are in various states of decay. Are you saying they were flash frozen?

Yes but we are looking for evidence for a Gap that goes totally against the greek philosophy that was blended in with evolution that basically says the universe is eternal and has gone on with no end this is the whole point of the Gap theory in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 you see evolution science tells us that "since the fathers(primates)died all things have continued as they were from the beginning of the creation" but Peter is saying NO! they are ignorant of the old heaven and earth that perished in water.And we are looking for evidence,I realize this goes against evolution but it is what the bible tells us and evolution has not been proven or demonstrated scientifically yet it is taught as scientific truth as you know.Evolutionists are not right about everything and have misinterpreted the evidence by looking at the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective.This has caused evolution scientists to be wrong like with the Coelacanth http://www.dinofish.com/that they said was a transitional fossil proof of evolution only to find that it still exists years later and was not extinct and was not a transitional fossil.So scientists can be wrong,they are not immune to mistakes and have made them.However we cannot ignore the evidence in the earth and our interpretation must be sound.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/10/31 ... americans/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 172136.htm

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-evidence-c ... dryas.html

abelcainsbrother wrote:

i noticed your concern with the 'gap theory' being ridiculed.

What do you expect?

A dead camel can only become a mummy if its frozen? Bones that show the characteristic weathering pattern of lying on the ground for two years only look that way because they were frozen? Come now.

You are basing your gap theory on things a school child can see are silly?

This can only happen if they are frozen


Really? Look at this and think a bit more.

Dead things cannot lay out in the elements and not decay away.

.the former world probably fully perished at the ice age until this world was created.

The vast majority of species alive before the ice age are still with us.

There are a few dozen specimens of frozen wooly mammoths. Most of them are just pieces, many show signs of having been scavenged before burial, all are in various states of decay. Are you saying they were flash frozen?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 172136.htm

Whether and how fast things "rot" is entirely dependent on the conditions.
A camel in the sahara will take a whole lot longer than it would in the Congo basin.

Bones disintegrate in a very characteristic way, the forensics people can tell you exactly how long the bone lay on the ground.

Fossils simply are not all of things suddenly buried, if that is what you are saying.

The link you sent in no way supports your ideas. Did you read it?

Sorry about that but I had to edit so you may need to review.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

i noticed your concern with the 'gap theory' being ridiculed.

What do you expect?

A dead camel can only become a mummy if its frozen? Bones that show the characteristic weathering pattern of lying on the ground for two years only look that way because they were frozen? Come now.

You are basing your gap theory on things a school child can see are silly?

This can only happen if they are frozen


Really? Look at this and think a bit more.

Dead things cannot lay out in the elements and not decay away.

.the former world probably fully perished at the ice age until this world was created.

The vast majority of species alive before the ice age are still with us.

There are a few dozen specimens of frozen wooly mammoths. Most of them are just pieces, many show signs of having been scavenged before burial, all are in various states of decay. Are you saying they were flash frozen?

Yes but we are looking for evidence for a Gap that goes totally against the greek philosophy that was blended in with evolution that basically says the universe is eternal and has gone on with no end this is the whole point of the Gap theory in 2nd Peter 3:3

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with greek philsophy of the nature of the universe.

-7 you see evolution science tells us that "since the fathers(primates)died all things have continued as they were from the beginning of the creation"

Where did you get that odd idea? That is no more like evolution than Obama is like the Metro Goldwin lion.

but Peter is saying NO! they are ignorant of the old heaven and earth that perished in water.And we are looking for evidence,I realize this goes against evolution

It goes against any science, not the least of it being that you put the conclusion first, then set out to prove it.

but it is what the bible tells us and evolution has not been proven or demonstrated scientifically yet it is taught as scientific truth as you know

Nothing is proven in science. I explained that before. To teach ANYTHING is science as "true" is stupid; maybe some is that stupid. Its not "how its taught" tho.

Evolutionists are not right about everything and have misinterpreted the evidence by looking at the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective.This has caused evolution scientists to be wrong like with the Coelacanth

Nobooy is always right.

http://www.dinofish.com/that they said was a transitional fossil proof of evolution only to find that it still exists years later and was not extinct and was not a transitional fossil

For example, none of that is correct, except that the Coelacanth is to be found alive today.

So scientists can be wrong,they are not immune to mistakes and have made them.However we cannot ignore the evidence in the earth and our interpretation must be sound

.

So why do you ignore the evidence that "gap" and other creationist ideas are so wrong?

[/quote]

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with greek philsophy of the nature of the universe.

No I do believe that Darwin borrowed from greek philosophy and it is apart of evolution as life has to always survive the extinction events because of the belief life evolves.

-7 you see evolution science tells us that "since the fathers(primates)died all things have continued as they were from the beginning of the creation"



Where did you get that odd idea? That is no more like evolution than Obama is like the Metro Goldwin lion.

You believe the primates evolved into men based on evolution,you believe life has existed for millions of years and no Gap have happened and I know this is true because when "Snow ball earth" was proposed part of the debate was to make sure life survived it somehow for the sake of evolution and so they found a way to explain that some life survived it so that it could evolve.

but Peter is saying NO! they are ignorant of the old heaven and earth that perished in water.And we are looking for evidence,I realize this goes against evolution


It goes against any science, not the least of it being that you put the conclusion first, then set out to prove it.

I know it does however that is not how science should work you never should go on blind faith to prove it.First you make sure it is demonstrable and this has never been the case for evolution as it has never been demonstrated life evolves and so after 150 years evolution is still faith based science being taught as scientific truth in our society,you know this and you risk losing a career in science if you go against evolution and challenge it.

but it is what the bible tells us and evolution has not been proven or demonstrated scientifically yet it is taught as scientific truth as you know


Nothing is proven in science. I explained that before. To teach ANYTHING is science as "true" is stupid; maybe some is that stupid. Its not "how its taught" tho.

The 2nd law and gravity just off the top of my head have been proven and are demonstrated unlike evolution yet evolution is propped up and made out to be the most proven thing in science.
Nothing is proven in science. I explained that before. To teach ANYTHING is science as "true" is stupid; maybe some is that stupid. Its not "how its taught" tho.

Evolutionists are not right about everything and have misinterpreted the evidence by looking at the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective.This has caused evolution scientists to be wrong like with the Coelacanth



Nobooy is always right.

I agree. "Let God be true and every man a liar."

http://www.dinofish.com/that they said was a transitional fossil proof of evolution only to find that it still exists years later and was not extinct and was not a transitional fossil

For example, none of that is correct, except that the Coelacanth is to be found alive today.

Yes it is and I said earlier that certain life existed in the former world and this world as we can see that certain kinds of life were in both worlds and have not evolved,changed,etc except that most is extinct.

So scientists can be wrong,they are not immune to mistakes and have made them.However we cannot ignore the evidence in the earth and our interpretation must be sound
.

So why do you ignore the evidence that "gap" and other creationist ideas are so wrong?

I don't fully understand the first part of your question but I think you are asking why do I ignore evidence that doesn't show a Gap and yet other creationist ideas are wrong?I believe the Gap theory is true biblically first based on researching it and praying about it trying to make sure it is right biblically and then I started looking for evidence in science and other places for evidence and although I haven't found it all of it yet and am still looking it is already more provable than evolution is.

However I don't believe science will ever give the bible a fair chance and so I am cautious about casting pearls before swine and am waiting for the right evidence to come along to back up more of it without revealing it all at once too soon.

Also eventhough I disagree with other creation ideas I actually accept some or a lot of what they believe I am not closed off to their ideas and I try to pick some truth out of all of them as you can always learn something new and through the years of researching many different things and reading books about things I wanted to know about I've realized that even a good book that is mostly true can still have some bad info in it and even a bad book with a lot of bad info can still have some truth in it and we can pick out the good stuff and shun the bad and I try to do this.

And lastly I believe that the Gap theory could help somebody win a Nobel prize by refuting evolution with it even if they left God out of it and ignored the fact that it came from reading the bible long before Charles Darwin came along.As I am not a scientist but if the right scientist researched it thoroughly and understood it I believe could find or know about more scientific evidence than I do to back it up.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with greek philsophy of the nature of the universe.

No I do believe that Darwin borrowed from greek philosophy and it is apart of evolution as life has to always survive the extinction events because of the belief life evolves.

-7 you see evolution science tells us that "since the fathers(primates)died all things have continued as they were from the beginning of the creation"



Where did you get that odd idea? That is no more like evolution than Obama is like the Metro Goldwin lion.

You believe the primates evolved into men based on evolution,you believe life has existed for millions of years and no Gap have happened and I know this is true because when "Snow ball earth" was proposed part of the debate was to make sure life survived it somehow for the sake of evolution and so they found a way to explain that some life survived it so that it could evolve.

but Peter is saying NO! they are ignorant of the old heaven and earth that perished in water.And we are looking for evidence,I realize this goes against evolution


It goes against any science, not the least of it being that you put the conclusion first, then set out to prove it.

I know it does however that is not how science should work you never should go on blind faith to prove it.First you make sure it is demonstrable and this has never been the case for evolution as it has never been demonstrated life evolves and so after 150 years evolution is still faith based science being taught as scientific truth in our society,you know this and you risk losing a career in science if you go against evolution and challenge it.

but it is what the bible tells us and evolution has not been proven or demonstrated scientifically yet it is taught as scientific truth as you know


Nothing is proven in science. I explained that before. To teach ANYTHING is science as "true" is stupid; maybe some is that stupid. Its not "how its taught" tho.

The 2nd law and gravity just off the top of my head have been proven and are demonstrated unlike evolution yet evolution is propped up and made out to be the most proven thing in science.
Nothing is proven in science. I explained that before. To teach ANYTHING is science as "true" is stupid; maybe some is that stupid. Its not "how its taught" tho.

Evolutionists are not right about everything and have misinterpreted the evidence by looking at the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective.This has caused evolution scientists to be wrong like with the Coelacanth



Nobooy is always right.

I agree. "Let God be true and every man a liar."

http://www.dinofish.com/that they said was a transitional fossil proof of evolution only to find that it still exists years later and was not extinct and was not a transitional fossil

For example, none of that is correct, except that the Coelacanth is to be found alive today.

Yes it is and I said earlier that certain life existed in the former world and this world as we can see that certain kinds of life were in both worlds and have not evolved,changed,etc except that most is extinct.

So scientists can be wrong,they are not immune to mistakes and have made them.However we cannot ignore the evidence in the earth and our interpretation must be sound
.

So why do you ignore the evidence that "gap" and other creationist ideas are so wrong?

I don't fully understand the first part of your question but I think you are asking why do I ignore evidence that doesn't show a Gap and yet other creationist ideas are wrong?I believe the Gap theory is true biblically first based on researching it and praying about it trying to make sure it is right biblically and then I started looking for evidence in science and other places for evidence and although I haven't found it all of it yet and am still looking it is already more provable than evolution is.

However I don't believe science will ever give the bible a fair chance and so I am cautious about casting pearls before swine and am waiting for the right evidence to come along to back up more of it without revealing it all at once too soon.

Also eventhough I disagree with other creation ideas I actually accept some or a lot of what they believe I am not closed off to their ideas and I try to pick some truth out of all of them as you can always learn something new and through the years of researching many different things and reading books about things I wanted to know about I've realized that even a good book that is mostly true can still have some bad info in it and even a bad book with a lot of bad info can still have some truth in it and we can pick out the good stuff and shun the bad and I try to do this.

And lastly I believe that the Gap theory could help somebody win a Nobel prize by refuting evolution with it even if they left God out of it and ignored the fact that it came from reading the bible long before Charles Darwin came along.As I am not a scientist but if the right scientist researched it thoroughly and understood it I believe could find or know about more scientific evidence than I do to back it up.

Thanks for trying but I think we are done here. Lets part as friends.

I haven't been following this thread for the simple reason that the gap theory doesn't interest me terribly much. I will only say that from reading the last post that Darwin most certainly did not get evolution from Greek philosophy. In fact, had Darwin (and his later followers) bothered studying his Greek philosophy, he would have realized that he was making some rather silly claims. And yes, I have read Greek philosophy. A lot of it.

That's not to say, abel, that you ought to embrace Greek philosophy. It is to say that as someone who has studied it in some detail, that your connection is not a fair one, and you would do well not to make claims about systems that you haven't studied.

God bless!

Jac3510 wrote:I haven't been following this thread for the simple reason that the gap theory doesn't interest me terribly much. I will only say that from reading the last post that Darwin most certainly did not get evolution from Greek philosophy. In fact, had Darwin (and his later followers) bothered studying his Greek philosophy, he would have realized that he was making some rather silly claims. And yes, I have read Greek philosophy. A lot of it.

That's not to say, abel, that you ought to embrace Greek philosophy. It is to say that as someone who has studied it in some detail, that your connection is not a fair one, and you would do well not to make claims about systems that you haven't studied.

God bless!

God Bless you too I picked it up somewhere that Darwin borrowed from greek philosophy but I can't seem to find where right now as I can't find the link.Anyway I feel that my overall points are still valid even if Darwin did not borrow from greek philosophy evolution still teaches that the world and specifically life has gone on for millions of years with no gap and I think the point Peter is making in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 is that it hasn't because there was a former world that people are ignorant about that perished which we have forensic scientific evidence to back it up if you don't look at this evidence from an evolution perspective and a gap between the former world and this world we now live in since Adam and Eve.

Thanks for trying but I think we are done here. Lets part as friends.

OK and thanks for the respectful disagreement.I do hope though that you'll look into many of the points I brought up so you can see it for yourself.

abelcainsbrother wrote:God Bless you too I picked it up somewhere that Darwin borrowed from greek philosophy but I can't seem to find where right now as I can't find the link.Anyway I feel that my overall points are still valid even if Darwin did not borrow from greek philosophy evolution still teaches that the world and specifically life has gone on for millions of years with no gap and I think the point Peter is making in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 is that it hasn't because there was a former world that people are ignorant about that perished which we have forensic scientific evidence to back it up if you don't look at this evidence from an evolution perspective and a gap between the former world and this world we now live in since Adam and Eve.

I suspect what the your source was getting at was that there were some Greek philosophers who posited an idea that seems to look similar to evolution. It's hardly surprising that you can find this or that philosopher who finds this or that point of convergence with this or that idea. And if we consider the question of why we are here, there are only a few possible answers: 1, we were always here, or 2, we were not; if 2, then either a, we were created or b, developed out of other things (something like evolution). So on the pure logic of it, it's hardly surprising to think that some Greeks thought that we came from water or even from other animals changing over time. But we don't need to say that Darwin (or any evolutionist for that matter) "borrowed" from Greek philosophy, since there is absolutely no indication that Darwin had any interaction with those philosophers. Moreover, Greek philosophy is a rather esoteric subject. Most don't study it, and those who do typically do well to read more than a few passages from Aristotle and Plato, neither of which provides any historical support for evolutionary thought. The guys you would have to say he read to get his ideas from? Yeah, let's just say that unless he was a specialist in Greek philosophy (and he was not), he wouldn't have so much as even heard of them.

Anyway, in full fairness to your point, here's an excerpt from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that might jog your memory about what you were thinking of:

• Evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It made its appearance early in Greek philosophy, and maintained its position more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water; when Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings and the phenomenal world as, a result of evolution, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence. In Empedocles, as in Epicurus and Lucretius, who follow in Hs footsteps, there are rudimentary suggestions of the Darwinian theory in its broader sense; and here too, as with Darwin, the mechanical principle comes in; the process is adapted to a certain end by a sort of natural selection, without regarding nature as deliberately forming its results for these ends.
  
  If the mechanical view is to be found in these philosophers, the teleological occurs in Heraclitus, who conceives the process as a rational development, in accordance with the Logos and names steps of the process, as from igneous air to water, and thence to earth. The Stoics followed Heraclitus in the main lines of their physics. The primal principle is, as with him, igneous air. only that this is named God by them with much greater definiteness. The Godhead has life in itself, and develops into the universe, differentiating primarily into two kinds of elements the finer or active, and the coarser or passive. Formation or development goes on continuously, under the impulse of the formative principle, by whatever name it is known, until all is once more dissolved by the ekpyrosis into the fundamental principle, and the whole process begins over again. Their conception of the process as analogous to the development of the seed finds special expression in their term of logos spermatikos. In one point the Stoics differ essentially from Heraclitus. With them the whole process is accomplished according to certain ends indwelling in the Godhead, which is a provident, careful intelligence, while no providence is assumed in Heraclitus.
  
  Empedocles asserts definitely that the sphairos, as the full reconciliation of opposites, is opposed, as the superior, to the individual beings brought into existence by hatred, which are then once more united by love to the primal essence, the interchange of world-periods thus continuing indefinitely. Development is to be found also in the atomistic philosopher Democritus; in a purely mechanical manner without any purpose, bodies come into existence out of atoms, and ultimately entire worlds appear and disappear from and to eternity. Like his predecessors, Deinocritus, deduces organic beings from what is inorganic-moist earth or slime.
  
  Development, as well as the process of becoming, in general, was denied by the Eleatic philosophers. Their doctrine, diametrically opposed to the older thoroughgoing evolutionism, had its influence in determining the acceptance of unchangeable ideas, or forms, by Plato and Aristotle. Though Plato reproduces the doctrine of Heraclitus as to the flux of all things in the phenomenal world, he denies any continuous change in the world of ideas. Change is permanent only in so far as the eternal forms stamp themselves upon individual objects. Though this, as a rule, takes place but imperfectly, the stubborn mass is so far affected that all works out as far as possible for the best. The demiurge willed that all should become as far as possible like himself; and so the world finally becomes beautiful and perfect. Here we have a development, though the principle which has the most real existence does not change; the forms, or archetypal ideas, remain eternally what they are.
  
  In Aristotle also the forms are the real existences, working in matter but eternally remaining the same, at once the motive cause and the effectual end of all things. Here the idea of evolution is clearer than in Plato, especially for the physical world, which is wholly dominated by purpose. The transition from lifeless to living matter is a gradual one, so that the dividing-line between them is scarcely perceptible. Next to lifeless matter comes the vegetable kingdom, which seems, compared with the inorganic, to have life, but appears lifeless compared with the organic. The transition from plants to animals is again a gradual one. The lowest organisms originate from the primeval slime, or from animal differentiation; there is a continual progression from simple, undeveloped types to the higher and more perfect. As the highest stage, the end and aim of the whole process, man appears; all lower forms are merely unsuccessful attempts to produce him. The ape is a transitional stage between man and other viviparous animals. If development has so important a work in Aristotle's physics, it is not less important in his metaphysics. The whole transition from potentiality to actuality (from dynamis toentelecheia) is nothing but a transition from the lower to the higher, everything striving to assimilate itself to the absolutely perfect, to the Divine. Thus Aristotle, like Plato, regards the entire order of the universe as a sort of deification. But the part played in the development by the Godhead, the absolutely immaterial form, is less than that of the forms which operate in matter, since, being already everything,, it is incapable of becoming anything else. Thus Aristotle, despite his evolutionistic notions, does not take the view of a thoroughgoing evolutionist as regards the universe; nor do the Neoplatonists, whose highest principle remains wholly unchanged, though all things emanate from it.

I'll also add that (as you can see from the article above), many have tried to link Aristotelian and Platonic thought with Darwinian evolution. My point is that such can only be done in retrospect, and even then, only by starting with a Darwinian framework and reading those ideas back into Aristotle where his framework so permits it. But Darwinian evolution, as such, is clearly a foreign idea to Greek philosophy. The really sad part of the whole thing was that if Darwin had maintained the one truly profound concept in Greek philosophy--that of teleology--then the whole idea of the New Atheism would never have come up. But such people don't understand much of anything, and that precisely because they have not studied. So in their ignorance of things they set up false dichotomies.

Beyond that, and no offense, I don't think that the gap theory has the kind of biblical support that you find. But to your point, evolutionary theory does no seem compatible with the gap theory for some of the reasons you have suggested. So if the GT is right, evolutionary theory is wrong. I am not an evolutionist, but I am also no a GTist. I just think both are wrong.

Beyond that, and no offense, I don't think that the gap theory has the kind of biblical support that you find. But to your point, evolutionary theory does no seem compatible with the gap theory for some of the reasons you have suggested. So if the GT is right, evolutionary theory is wrong. I am not an evolutionist, but I am also no a GTist. I just think both are wrong.

Thanks for the response and the information you gave but I would like to know what would change your mind about the Gap theory? I don't understand how if you read through and compared the information I gave to back it up that you could still reject it when I gave info that refutes many of the things critics of it say against the Gap theory and I don't see how you could believe them over the info I gave when their arguments were soundly and biblically refuted.

There are more reasons I accept the Gap theory that I have not even got in to.I think it is important first to make sure it is biblical before we should accept it and I have not adequately done this as I've only used Jeremiah 4:23-28,2nd Peter 3:3-7,Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as scriptural references but there are more like Isaiah 48:3-11,Hebrews 1:2,Isaiah 14:12-17,Ezekiel 28:11-13.

Isaiah 14:12-17 and Ezekiel 28:11-13 are important because of the history of Lucifer and a third of the angels that rebelled and the fact that before Lucifer rebelled he was in Eden on this earth but before this world was created until he rebelled and if this is not true then we have to say Lucifer and the third of the angels that rebelled were created on day 4 and so that does not seem to leave enough time only 2 days later for them to rebel and that doesn't make biblical sense unless you lengthen the days but two days still isn't long and the bible seems to indicate that Lucifer rebelled long before this world was created but was cast down to the earth (Luke 10:18,Rev 12:7-9).

Also just like Revelation 12:7-9 is a look back in time and not forward so also is Jeremiah 4:23-28.Also what is described in Jeremiah 4:23-28 has not happened since Adam and Eve and I don't see how it could be a future prophecy based on the fact that people are still alive and survived the tribulation when Jesus comes back and this is before a new heaven and new earth are created (Rev 21:1) and so it further backs up that this is a look back in time to what happened to the former world when it perished.