The Gap Theory Examined

That's OK. Not all truth is suppossed to be "taken in easily." Agreed, but we have the ability to imagine from this perspective. Also, there are lots of things science accepts that we cannot see easily or at all, but infer from evidence, such as gravity.Moreover, sometimes prophets see in part past this linear boundary. Not really. The mutable past is something I believe was shown to me long before I had any inkling science had some credible mechanisms or theoritical mechanisms that could indicate this. In other words, I predict this from my own experience with the Lord, and from the word of God, and am happy to see science beginning to move along this path somewhat.Now, I am certainly not dogmatic over every detail of the scenario I depicted, but would caution you as well not to assert there is only one plausible explanation when that is not the case. Our assumptions of time have already been modified in science by relativity, and it seems to be accurate thus far. This is not really that much more of a break with our old assumptions in time, and I suspect we will see more and more data indicating my view of time is correct here. I agree except that the verses in question do deal with the period of time prior to man's creation. I wouldn't exactly refer to them as "the most indirect way" but it's very true the Bible does not provide a lot of prehistoric details, which is why, in one respect, it is silly for evolutionists to insist that evolutionary theory contradicts the Bible. The Bible is far too vague, imo, and is therefore sufficiently elastic in it's language to support a number of different viewpoints, although that does not mean the Bible is deliberately written that way. It just means the details are insufficient.Where you see "darkness" representing an absence of light, I see darkness as some sort of real thing separated from light (hence predicting dark matter and energy), but I also see a higher level of truth being communicated via patterning of physical things indicating spiritual realities, and suspect sometimes the Bible is written more to illustrate the higher principles more than the lower, or initial literal meaning.I think Jesus illustrates this principle by sometimes speaking in confusing language, such as "the leaven" of the Pharissees by which the disciples thought he was talking about bread, or eating and drinking his body and blood and similar language that used the everyday in a metaphorical manner.Not that this is all "just metaphorical" but I believe it can be both literal and metaphorical, and the Bible supports that concept."Does God take care for oxen?"Hmmm.....does he take care for the scientific method?

Astronomy:1. The universe has an age of at least 10 billion to 20 billion years.
2. The galaxies in the universe are at this moment expanding and have been doing so since the matter which they comprise coalesced into these galaxies.
3. The big bang theory states that the universe came into existence through an explosion that created all the matter in the universe.
See The Big Bang TheoryBiology:1. Fossil records state that life existed on this planet as long ago as 3.5 billion years ago.
See Origin of life on earthGeology:1. Tectonic shift and sedimentation show the relatively old age of the earth.
See Earths EonsAs can be seen most of these are facts other items are widely accepted theories. Genesis in my opinion doesn't contradict any of these facts in general but it does so in specifics.As I was explaining to randman, Verse one of Genesis is seperated from verse two by an unkown ammount of time which could be millions if not billions of years long.The events in the creation account are not the events of the original creation but are instead a "recreation account".Does this answer you satisfactorily?

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

We could debate that, but for me the fact the Bible says He does "plan ahead" is sufficient to let me know that whether He "needs to" or not, whatever that could mean in the context of a God needing nothing, is a moot point.The Bible says He planned ahead of time the atonement, for example, and the works that He has called His people to, even from before the world began.This message has been edited by randman, 07-05-2005 04:48 PM

Ah, but there's "planning" and then there's planning."Planning" for atonement entails God's foreknowledge of what would be necessary - i.e. it involves God waiting for us to catch up with Him, as it were.That kind of planning was in no way necessary during the Creation. Therefore, your dichotomy between "creating" and "making" still fails.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Seriously, this is nonsense. Why do you prefer nonsense to legitimate inquiry into the natural world?You constantly assert that the methods evolutionists use to argue their position - as though evolution needed to be argued for, these days - is the greatest evidence that the whole thing is suspect. Turn that around. If the best expression of your model is lingustic nonsense ("colorless green ideas") then it's obvious that there's no truth to it. And since this is your own reasoning I'm employing, it's now obvious that you're an atheist, too.

I think that we as humans cannot reaaly imagine or even suppose what it could be like to see the past, present and future as if they were the same moment. To do so would be to see as God does and we aren't built to understand this concept except in the most abstract way.Arguing whether God can foresee (and plan ahead or even have any need to plan) or not is really not the point since it is we that cannot jump the boundary of linear time, not God.I would suggest that when God speaks in this way he is doing so for our benefit not his.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Sounds like since you have no argument, you have resorted to mindless bashing with no substance at all to your posts.Carry on.

it was just as necessary in the creation because it was not all created in an instant. To assert that God who flat out tells He revels in planning, to a degree, didn't do any planning in creating the world over a time period, is not a sound argument.It makes more sense that God thought of what He wanted to do, and then did it, just as the Bible seems to state, imo. I can accept these may be overly human terms, but the Bible is full of examples of breaking down aspects of God and how He works in human terms so I suppose I am not in bad company.The simple fact is I did not create the dichotomy between creating and making. The text has 2 different words for a reason.Do you care to offer an alternative reason?Edit to add that God planned for the atonement prior to mankind's creation and subsequent need for it. So it was not a mere matter of waiting for us to catch up to Him, but of Him planning for our error in advance.My point in general is that the time element which the Bible clearly indicates is part of God's creative process indicates a high probability of careful planning, and the fact the Bible states Jesus claiming never to do anything except what His Father first does coupled with John referring to the Logos as making the world suggests to me that God the Father is the Creator part of God, and the Logos is the Maker part.This message has been edited by randman, 07-05-2005 09:46 PM

But if we are trying to properly assess "how God did it", doesn't it seem more appropiate to try, even in an abstract way, to see how God might have done it in light of the scriptures instead of assuming that God works within the limitations of our level of experience of linear time?I submit it is more appropiate to look at these things, as much as possible, from God's perspective, not the perspective of the experience of man. Yes and no. Certainly, God speaks via His prophets in the Old Testament for instance, for our benefit, but at the same time, there is some sense that man's fall really did entail a true constraint upon God, not one He cannot get around, but a restraing that required God do something extraordinary to redeem mankind, namely that a man and only another human being had to be the one to break the cord with sin and death, and by extension the enemy, and thus God planned to be that man, Himself, which is a mystery but a true one.So in a sense, God's own word limited Him to working within His own principles of truth, and thus God needed Jesus to make that sacrifice to bring mankind back into the fold so to speak, and it could not just be done by deciding that, oh well, it's all OK now and we can just forget about the fall of mankind and all of mankind's debt of sin.In terms of God speaking as if limited and working within linear time, I agree wholeheartedly that it is for our benefit.

No!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not convinced that there is a profound reason for the use of two different words. More than one word is used for "God", too. Does that imply more than one God? Then why can't "creating" and "making" be different aspects of the same thing, rather than two different things? The "plan" was to wait for us to make the error that He anticipated. That is not the same as planning to make something and then making it. "Clearly indicates"? Chapter and verse? Where does God "flat out" tell us that He "revels in planning"? Chapter and verse?And you still haven't explained why you portray God sitting in a lawn chair, drinking beer and saying to Himself, "I'm gonna build me a Creation. Yep, that's what I'm gonna do, soon as I get around to it. Gonna be a mighty nice Creation, too. Gonna separate the light from the darkness, and maybe the seas from the land, too. Yep, one of these days...."

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

If you think that's the way I've portrayed God, then we have little to say to one another, but maybe I'll try one last time.."The glory of God is to conceal a matter, but the honor of kings is to search it out.""The Lord is a man of war."Look up the chapters and verse yourself.Note too that Paul speaks of God revealing mysteries to us according to the "good pleasure of His will."If you don't want to accept Jesus and John's words, already mentioned on prior posts btw, on how the Logos works, that's your business.This message has been edited by randman, 07-06-2005 01:15 AM

So we should assume God is limited via linear progression of time as we are?That makes sense to you?oh well

Uh uh uh.... That's not the way it works here. You support your own statements and you provide your own references. (And maybe even quote some verses that have something to do with the subject. )

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Ringo, I've referenced the gospels and the first chapter of the gospel of John in particular, and you have not addressed those points.Saying I don't see it, then asking me to provide additional chapter and verse without giving any explanation, evidence, nada, of why you don't accept the gospel accounts of Jesus and John, and neither the distinction of "create" and "make" is not how it works around here either.Care to first address those points?Why 2 words?Why did John say the Logos "makes" all things?Who is the Logos?Why did Jesus say He can do nothing but what He sees the Father first do?If you are willing to enter the discussion and first discuss these points already made, I am willing to provide more chapter and verse, but this has to work both ways here.This message has been edited by randman, 07-06-2005 02:16 AM