Evidence for God from Science

I'm not trying to bash other viewpoints but why does this article have a gap view bias?
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... #important

To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?

I only see a gap theory viewpoint. There are other viewpoints that support an old earth that are drawn biblically.

It's a long article, but what I've read, I see him generally leaning towards a Day-Age interpretation. Gen 1:1 is pivotal to a Day-Age understanding, for in it, we have all the heavens and Earth being established. And then Gen 1:2 sets the scene of the cosmos being at a time when Earth had formed, and being at a stage where it is empty and unshaped with water is all over its surface.

A Gap interpretation hinges upon there being a gap between verses 1 and 2 somewhere. They argue from Gen 1:2 our world became a wasteland and the cause of such destruction is attributed to fallen angels, however God then goes onto re-create the world. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see Gap being argued or reasoned for in the linked to article.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?

I only see a gap theory viewpoint. There are other viewpoints that support an old earth that are drawn biblically.

This is a long article to read and I did'nt read all of it in detail,it seems to keep going and going but I see no acknowledgement of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 eventhough he is using much of the same arguments Gap Creationists do to show why young earth creationism is wrong.Like it teaches that there is a difference between the words bara and asah which Gap creationists know,yet young earth creationists teach wrongly that they are interchangeable.It is just a different way of teaching it than a knowledgable Gap theorist would,but still teaches it correctly. I just see no acknowledgement of a gap and I see no reason why there is no acknowledgement especially when he's using a KJV and even quotes from the Scofield bible,but it is Day Age. I think Day Agers would acknowledge a gap if it was'nt for the Big Bang Theory and how they have made it blend into Genesis 1,but I see no evidence of it yet.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?

I only see a gap theory viewpoint. There are other viewpoints that support an old earth that are drawn biblically.

I didn't see any bias towards The Gap Theory. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised to see Rich put an article on his site that is pro-Gap theory, because he thinks the Gap Theory is wrong.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gap.html

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?

I only see a gap theory viewpoint. There are other viewpoints that support an old earth that are drawn biblically.

I didn't see any bias towards The Gap Theory. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised to see Rich put an article on his site that is pro-Gap theory, because he thinks the Gap Theory is wrong.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gap.html

The Gap theory is still a Creation theory as is YEC and Old Earth Creationism.

So, it is not surprising to see such an article here on the site. Guess we will all have to wait till we get to heaven to find out who is right...
-
-
-