Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Gap Theory (Fossils Young / Earth Old) genesis 1:3/ 1:1
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 28 (103101)
04-27-2004 2:34 PM


Hello? Hello? ... phones seems to be broken ...
Off topic posts on Age Correlations raise the issue of different forms of creationism:
From:
wj writes:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth:
rickrose, irrespective of the length in real time of a "day" in genesis 1, the problem remains that the order fo creation of the specified living organisms is inconsistent with the scientific evidence. How do you explain such anomolies?
to:
rickrose writes:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth
So I can attempt to respond, please briefly fill me in on the anomolies of the Gen order of creation. Also would you do me the favor of explaining what exactly the meaning of the title of this site means above everyone's contribution. The Gap Theory (I got the middle ye/oe) gen 1:3/1:1. Please tolerate my ingorance. This is my first experience on a chat room, if this is a chat room. Also I have never engaged others in any lengthy discussion on c vrs e who took the time to explain what they believe. Busy world. thanks, rickrose
There are several different forms of creationism, the most familiar of which is the literalist young earth form (YEC), but others are Old earth (OEC), and GAP (gaps between creation days or similar constructs), and finally there are other religions -- hindu fundamentalist creationism for instance (scientific dates too young for the real universe)
a good overview can be found at wikipedia.com:
Creationism - Wikipedia
enjoy.
[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-28-2004]
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 20:12 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 28 (103409)
04-28-2004 3:08 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
The amount of substance in message 1 seems to me to be pretty thin.
Topic opened to debate anyway.
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-28-2004]

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2004 4:25 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 8 by wj, posted 04-28-2004 10:03 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 28 (103430)
04-28-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
04-28-2004 3:08 PM


thank you. the reason for starting it was that rickrose said he wanted to pursue it further on
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-28-2004 3:08 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by rickrose, posted 04-28-2004 6:16 PM RAZD has not replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 28 (103479)
04-28-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
04-28-2004 4:25 PM


razd, I didn't post anything further on the other site after you pointed to the deviation. This is meant as a response to the person who said bibl's creation is our of harmony with science. I could't post it directly to him because it would have gone on the other string. I do have some questions though about the lake in Japan. I tried to get info about it. I will ask on other site in near future. -- rickrose
DAY ONE
‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day,
but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,
a first day.Genesis 1:3, 5.
Of course the sun and moon existed long before this first day, but their light
did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to
be visible on earth on this first day, and the already rotating earth began to have alternating days and
nights.
Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not
instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J.
W. Watts reflects this when it says: And gradually light came into existence. (A Distinctive
Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through
the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was light diffused, as indicated by a comment
about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.See footnote b for verse 14.
Second Day
‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the
waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division
between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the
expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.Genesis 1:6-8.
Some translations use the word firmament instead of expanse. From this the argument
is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this firmament
as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses firmament, says in the
margin, expansion. This is because the Hebrew word raqia', translated expanse, means to
stretch out or spread out or expand.
The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the
described separation occurred, it would look as though the ‘waters above’ had been pushed up
from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in the expanse of the heavens, as stated at
Genesis 1:20.
Third Day
14 ‘Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land
appear.’ And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing
together of the waters he called Seas. (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe
how this was done. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the
formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But
Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of
the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth’s history are described: its measurements,
its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry landmany things in general
about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a
building, the Bible says that God asked Job: Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk
down, or who laid its cornerstone?Job 38:6.
Interestingly, like socket pedestals, earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and
even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots
into soil. The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over
again, and shown to be valid, says Putnam’s Geology.2 Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles
thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice
that far. And all earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core from all directions, making it like a
great cornerstone of support.
Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point
is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.
Land Plants [note first life is after some penetration of sun]on Third Day
The Bible account adds: ‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing
seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.’
And it came to be so.Genesis 1:11.
Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had
been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process
of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every
kind of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not
specifically named, but likely were created on this day.
Fourth Day
‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the
day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And
they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it
came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for
dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the
stars.Genesis 1:14-16.
Previously, on the first day, the expression Let light come to be was used. The Hebrew
word there used for light is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth day, the
Hebrew word changes to ma’ohr, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote
on Luminaries in the Emphasised Bible, says: In ver. 3, ’r [’ohr], light diffused. Then he goes
on to show that the Hebrew word ma’ohr in verse 14 means something affording light. On the
first day diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light
could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the
earth. Now, on this fourth day, things apparently changed.
An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate.
But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some
of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygena
requirement for animal life.Psalm 136:7-9.
Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and
stars, which would serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. (Genesis 1:14) The
moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The
seasons that now came to be on this fourth day would no doubt [probably] have been much milder than
they became later on.Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.
Fifth Day
‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the
earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God proceeded to create the great sea
monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to
their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.Genesis 1:20, 21.
It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm
are called living souls. This term would also apply to the flying creatures [that] fly over the
earth upon the face of the expanse. And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life,
such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.
Sixth Day
‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving
animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so.Genesis 1:24.
Thus on the sixth day, land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But
this final day was not over. One last remarkable kind was to come:
And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and
let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the
domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And
God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female
he created them.Genesis 1:26, 27.
Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have
concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point
in the third day, after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that
were pertinent to the arrival of humansAdam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the
woman Eve, his wife.Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.
The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite
realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just
144 hours (6 24), but over many millenniums of time.
How Did Genesis Know?
Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the
creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent
Bible dictionary noted: No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the
universe and the myths are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in
marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.3 Regarding Babylonian creation
legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: The fundamental conceptions of the
Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.4
From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically
sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties,
reproducing according to their kinds.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of
Genesis, [even if you don't believe that Moses wrote it, no one disclaims Genesis as a book outdating modern science] any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no
resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things?
Apparently from someone who was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation
account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10
major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in
heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6)
land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea
monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees
that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis
just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box,
and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in
3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order
without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
A well-known geologist said this about the Genesis creation account:
If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth
and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the
Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the
language of the first chapter of Genesis.b This geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the
order of eventsfrom the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of
marine life, and then to birds and mammalsis essentially the sequence of the principal
divisions of geologic time. rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2004 4:25 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by rickrose, posted 04-28-2004 6:19 PM rickrose has not replied
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2004 6:54 PM rickrose has not replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 28 (103481)
04-28-2004 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by rickrose
04-28-2004 6:16 PM


Forgot to mention that what I just sent is what I believe, but most of it came from a book published by my religion. The book is not very wide spread and not available in book store. If anyone wants to examine the book, It may be available on a website - I'm not sure. I have it on cdrom. rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by rickrose, posted 04-28-2004 6:16 PM rickrose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2004 6:45 PM rickrose has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 28 (103496)
04-28-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by rickrose
04-28-2004 6:19 PM


s'cool. I will look for you swimming in Lake Suigetsu
you might be able to find the book title at amazon.com and they often have a review as well.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by rickrose, posted 04-28-2004 6:19 PM rickrose has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 28 (103503)
04-28-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by rickrose
04-28-2004 6:16 PM


Of course this relies on carefully interpreting Genesis to fit in with what we know - for instance the assumption that the Sun, Moon and Stars existed before the 4th day which is not stated in the actual text. Worse it requires distorting what we know to fit in with Genesis. Fruit trees, for instance, appear long after the first land plants.
But the most amazing thing is the assumption that the author required assistance to work out that the beginning occurred before the other events !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by rickrose, posted 04-28-2004 6:16 PM rickrose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 04-28-2004 10:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 28 (103546)
04-28-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
04-28-2004 3:08 PM


Admoose, we disagree again.
The amount of substance in message 1 seems to me to be pretty thin.
Razd has done the right thing and created a new thread for an issue which was diverging off topic in the original thread. I'm sure he's not prepared to second guess rickrose's position. It seems the perfect action in the circumstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-28-2004 3:08 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 9 of 28 (103549)
04-28-2004 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
04-28-2004 6:54 PM


Paulk, Now I'm not a theologian, but on day 1 the sun was made a light(went nucleur), but it wasn't a visible light in the firmament(arched sky), on day 4 it was made a visible light in the firmament unto the earth, he made the moon to be a visible light in the night sky, and the stars too. Leaning the problem with the misinterpretation of the 4th God Day (1000 years = 1 God day) 2 Peter 3:8. God made the sun is that it says he made the stars also, meaning "he made" in my KJV is italised meaning these words were added for clarification, if not used it makes more sense, the stars became visible in the night sky too, which was the intent of kjv genesis 1:14-15 for these light to visible in the firmament (arched sky) and it was so, etc...
P.S. Think when the words are italised, the translators wanted to make sure it was noted it was only added for clarity, so they
wouldn't be guilty of tampering with the Word, kinda like in other instances where men were added that if you would take it literally, it would tend to make one think God didn't include the woman, but don't see it so, sometimes the clarification of the translators acutally seems to make the verse clearer, but appears in respect to the stars its makes it as clear as mud, so you need to take this into context, and the verse becomes clear, they were made to be visible too, etc...
kjv Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: "he made" the stars also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2004 6:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 04-28-2004 10:39 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 11 by rickrose, posted 04-28-2004 11:07 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 3:50 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 28 (103552)
04-28-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
04-28-2004 10:32 PM


Re:
About 8 minutes after the sun was made the light was visible on the earth.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 04-28-2004 10:32 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 28 (103563)
04-28-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
04-28-2004 10:32 PM


Re:
The creation of the sun, moon, stars is not a Gen creative day. The account begins: In the begining God created the heavens and the earth.-- Gen 1:1 That was in the begining, billions of years ago. The raw material of the earth as a cosmic soup was also then created. Gen 1:2 picks up the six creative days transforming the cosmic soup into a habitable planet. It starts: 2. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
According to the start of vrs 2 which is the first creative day, the earth was already here. But it proved 'formless and waste' and 'there was darkness'upon the surface of the watery deep.' So day one begins with a gradual clarification of the atmosphere; enough to which is finished on day four. Day one some sunlight shone from a billions of year old sun upon a billions of year old planet. Day four; the complete luminaries are visible, sun moon, and stars.
P.S. Translation can be difficult just as interpretation of science can be difficult
rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 04-28-2004 10:32 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 04-28-2004 11:43 PM rickrose has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 28 (103579)
04-28-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by rickrose
04-28-2004 11:07 PM


Re:
Rick
Regardless of how you stretch or compress time descriptions, 8 minutes after the sun became a star it shone on the earth or the spot where the earth would someday be..

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by rickrose, posted 04-28-2004 11:07 PM rickrose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by rickrose, posted 04-29-2004 8:14 AM jar has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 28 (103666)
04-29-2004 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
04-28-2004 10:32 PM


Re:
You didn't address my point that Genesis 1 does not say that the sun moon or stars existed before the fourth day. You just made the same sort of speculations. Now a plain reading of Genesis 1 does NOT attribute daylight to the sun (nor does it recognise that moonlight is reflected sunlight) so the text alone gives us no reason to assume that the light created in the first day has anything to do with the sun at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 04-28-2004 10:32 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by rickrose, posted 04-29-2004 8:16 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 17 by rickrose, posted 04-29-2004 8:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 28 (103682)
04-29-2004 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
04-28-2004 11:43 PM


Re:
Got the point, you're correct.
In quest of truth
rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 04-28-2004 11:43 PM jar has not replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 28 (103683)
04-29-2004 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
04-29-2004 3:50 AM


Re:
Do you know of any any sources of light in the universe other than stellar, or biochemical?
In Quest of Truth
rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 3:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 8:25 AM rickrose has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024