NationStates Jolt Archive

Any Christians here believe in the Gap Theory where there's a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2? Any non-Christians think it's a better theory than the 6000 year old Earth theory? I just thought I'd get some opinions on the subject, you know for shits and giggles.

For more information for those who have no idea what the hell I'm talking about you can go here: http://www.christiangeology.com/


Oh yeah, just in case your wondering as a Christian I do believe in the theory.

I think you'll find a lot of modern Christians are far more in support than the 6000 year old earth......that, and I've never actually met a Christian who bothered to TRY to argue that whole 6000 year thing....

Any Christians here believe in the Gap Theory where there's a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2? Any non-Christians think it's a better theory than the 6000 year old Earth theory? I just thought I'd get some opinions on the subject, you know for shits and giggles.

For more information for those who have no idea what the hell I'm talking about you can go here: http://www.christiangeology.com/


Oh yeah, just in case your wondering as a Christian I do believe in the theory.
At least it is getting the time scales closer but the creation order is still off not to mention even with a massive gap it still does not really fit reality

But at least overall it seems a BIT closer lol

Simonist']I've never actually met a Christian who bothered to TRY to argue that whole 6000 year thing....

You should come to where I live then, you'd die laughing at some of their 'facts' that prove Earth is only 6000 years old.

You should come to where I live then, you'd die laughing at some of their 'facts' that prove Earth is only 6000 years old.
Which are usually just them trying to disprove evolution … like that somehow proves THEIR theory

care to quote some? do people really think that?

what's the vatican's position on it, just out of curiosity?

care to quote some? do people really think that?

what's the vatican's position on it, just out of curiosity?
Just wait around a bit … every few months we have a nice long thread on the topic lol

A million-year gap is a very creative interpretation of the word "day."

care to quote some? do people really think that?
what's the vatican's position on it, just out of curiosity?

The Vatican accepts evolution and the Big Bang, but still acknowleges God's role in these processes and the presence of a soul in humans.

care to quote some? do people really think that?

what's the vatican's position on it, just out of curiosity?Knowing Benny, probably against. :p

I think most Christians take the story of creation as an allegory or metaphor instead of a blow-by-blow account of what really happened.

Of course, there are always some who take everything to extremes.

I think most Christians take the story of creation as an allegory or metaphor instead of a blow-by-blow account of what really happened.Except for the die-hard biblicists, who also take literally everything against gay marriage, abortion, and the ideas of economic socialism but social authoritarianism. Funny how those seem to hold so much power. :rolleyes:

The Vatican accepts evolution and the Big Bang, but still acknowleges God's role in these processes and the presence of a soul in humans.

That was under John Paul the second, this new right-winged guy probably believes the complete opposite

That was under John Paul the second, this new right-winged guy probably believes the complete opposite
But he cant overturn the view because that would be admitting fallacy of the position :)

The Vatican accepts evolution and the Big Bang, but still acknowleges God's role in these processes and the presence of a soul in humans.

ah, good. i'm glad i agree with my source of religious authority on this issue then :D . well, i know very little about teh big bang, but i'll go with it until we get a better theory or disprove it.

Geltar, the new guy seems pretty similar to John Paul II, I doubt he'll refute his comments, even if he does think differnently, which i doubt.

ah, good. i'm glad i agree with my source of religious authority on this issue then :D . well, i know very little about teh big bang, but i'll go with it until we get a better theory or disprove it.

Geltar, the new guy seems pretty similar to John Paul II, I doubt he'll refute his comments, even if he does think differnently, which i doubt.
Their views and processes are entirely different (and we have just started to see the beginning) everything from his threats to excommunicate Spanish politicians for the gay marriage acceptance to his stance on gay rights to you name it
It would not surprise me at all if he was a young earth theorist

has he actually threatened to excommunicate, or is it people interpreting something he said? i get very little news here at ox, link please?

what is his stance to gay rights? i know JP didn't approve of gays, i don't know his stance on their rights though.

Indeed, if you ask me, the problem is that they take religious allegory as scientific fact, ignoring the distinction between the ancient religious mindset and the modern scientific one that Christians are trying to emulate. Christianity is a religion, though, and it works best when viewed in a religious framework. Trying to make it fit into the scientific framework won't work.

The two are based on completely different methods and I think something can be spiritually true, but not necessarily make sense from a scientific framework. Creationism, as an allegory for the origin of the universe, and particularly the origin of the various elements important to Christianity, works and may be true in a symbolic and religious sense, but not in a literal sense.

Simonist']I think you'll find a lot of modern Christians are far more in support than the 6000 year old earth......that, and I've never actually met a Christian who bothered to TRY to argue that whole 6000 year thing....
There's a whole family tree in the bible

A million-year gap is a very creative interpretation of the word "day."
Along the lines of this, I know a bunch of modern Christians (and by modern I mean NOT the literalists who take the Bible at its word, not just Christians of the current day) that support the belief that when the story of Creation was written, the explainations of God creating everything in "days" were actually used as such because there was no other explaination that the uneducated people of the time would've comprehended.

Here's (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creation_timeline_chart/index.shtml) a good link that pretty accurately shows what I'm poorly trying to explain with the "days" thing.....in case you haven't seen it before.

i am a creationist who does not believe in the gap theory. so there'ya go. :)

Also, if you use the bible's timeline, adam and eve got kicked out of the garden of eden approximately 7,320 years ago.

Also, if you use the bible's timeline, adam and eve got kicked out of the garden of eden approximately 7,320 years ago.
Then how does the Bible support the 6000 year argument?

Also, if you use the bible's timeline, adam and eve got kicked out of the garden of eden approximately 7,320 years ago.
Wow believe in something and you don't know the time line ... according to what I can find it is closer to from 6,327 to 6,573 years old

Total age of the earth

If you would like to see a fairly clean breakdown of the age as per bible reckoning
http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm

This does not constitute a theory... it's just covering for the holes in the idea that the bible's creation story is to be taken literally.

Indeed, if you ask me, the problem is that they take religious allegory as scientific fact, ignoring the distinction between the ancient religious mindset and the modern scientific one that Christians are trying to emulate. Christianity is a religion, though, and it works best when viewed in a religious framework. Trying to make it fit into the scientific framework won't work..

"The Bible tells us how to go to the heavens, not how the heavens go."
-Galileo Galilei

If you would like to see a fairly clean breakdown of the age as per bible reckoning
http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm
Is that in correlation with, in contrast to, or standing alone from my link?

Very interesting, btw

Simonist']Is that in correlation with, in contrast to, or standing alone from my link?

Very interesting, btw
I guess standing alone lol

Indeed, if you ask me, the problem is that they take religious allegory as scientific fact, ignoring the distinction between the ancient religious mindset and the modern scientific one that Christians are trying to emulate. Christianity is a religion, though, and it works best when viewed in a religious framework. Trying to make it fit into the scientific framework won't work.

The two are based on completely different methods and I think something can be spiritually true, but not necessarily make sense from a scientific framework. Creationism, as an allegory for the origin of the universe, and particularly the origin of the various elements important to Christianity, works and may be true in a symbolic and religious sense, but not in a literal sense.

Our existence in itself does not make logical sense.

Our existence in itself does not make logical sense.
How so?

How so?

The fact that we have a consience being inside of our bodies.

The fact that we can know right from wrong.

The fact that matter cannot create itself. Physical laws cannot create themselves.

The fact that living things don't come from non-living things.

The fact that we, unlike all other species, can effectively communicate and pin-point our exact needs.

The fact that we can love one another.

I could go on, and on.


Edit: I believe, if I'm not mistaken, you and I have debated God's existence bare to the bone. I don't feel like doing so. You have your faith, I have mine. :)

The fact that we have a consience being inside of our bodies.

The fact that we can know right from wrong.

The fact that matter cannot create itself. Physical laws cannot create themselves.

The fact that living things don't come from non-living things.

The fact that we, unlike all other species, can effectively communicate and pin-point our exact needs.

The fact that we can love one another.

I could go on, and on.



Not to mention the fact we live in a universe infinitely hostile to our very existence :D

Not to mention the fact we live in a universe infinitely hostile to our very existence :D
Oh, that's to all of us? Oh, thank God. I thought I was running into a real problem there for awhile.

The fact that we have a consience being inside of our bodies.
The fact that we can know right from wrong.
The fact that matter cannot create itself. Physical laws cannot create themselves.
The fact that living things don't come from non-living things.
The fact that we, unlike all other species, can effectively communicate and pin-point our exact needs.
The fact that we can love one another.


Why is that illogical? Those things are inexplainable through natural processes, but not illogical.

Physical laws can be created. You can manipulate and creaty magnetic fields, thereby creating a physical law that had not existed in the (albeit small) area before.

Well, it's possible living things did originally come from nonliving things. There are replicating polymers and other substances very similar to living organisms. Not to mention we are made of nothing more than nonliving particles.

Why is that illogical? Those things are inexplainable through natural processes, but not illogical.

Physical laws can be created. You can manipulate and creaty gravity, thereby creating a physical law that had not existed in the (albeit small) area before.

Well, it's possible living things did originally come from nonliving things. There are replicating polymers and other substances very similar to living organisms. Not to mention we are made of nothing more than nonliving particles.



Physical laws can be created, but nothing can create itself. :)

Physical laws can be created, but nothing can create itself. :)
Including a god ...

Why is that illogical? Those things are inexplainable through natural processes, but not illogical.

Physical laws can be created. You can manipulate and creaty gravity, thereby creating a physical law that had not existed in the (albeit small) area before.

Well, it's possible living things did originally come from nonliving things. There are replicating polymers and other substances very similar to living organisms. Not to mention we are made of nothing more than nonliving particles.

Manipulate gravity? Show me an example.

Those substances are NOT living, though.

And since when are cells non-living particles?

Physical laws can be created, but nothing can create itself. :)

How did god happen?

Physical laws can be created, but nothing can create itself. :)

The Big Bang exploded, but what caused it to explode?

Were the physical laws already in existence before the explosion or were they created at the time of the explosion, which would mean the Big Bang and the physical laws created themselves?

The fact that we have a consience being inside of our bodies.

The fact that we can know right from wrong.

The fact that matter cannot create itself. Physical laws cannot create themselves.

The fact that living things don't come from non-living things.

The fact that we, unlike all other species, can effectively communicate and pin-point our exact needs.

The fact that we can love one another.

I could go on, and on.


Edit: I believe, if I'm not mistaken, you and I have debated God's existence bare to the bone. I don't feel like doing so. You have your faith, I have mine. :)


And what makes throes “illogical” ? I mean I can see how they are not likly but how are they as you said in of themselfs illogical?

Including a god ...

No. THis has been agrued against before.

A God would be a non-physical agent (metaphysical) and therefore not subject to our physical laws. So, in essence, time, gravity, and thermodynamical laws would not apply.

Manipulate gravity? Show me an example.

And since when are cells non-living particles?

Sorry, meant magnetism. You can create a magnetic field where one did not exist before, and so create a law in an area where it was not in existence before.

It'll take a few thousand years to fully understand the workings of gravity. ;)

Cells are made of non-living elements that somehow work together to function as a living organism. We're really just piles of carbohydrates, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen bases that somehow work together.

And what makes throes “illogical” ? I mean I can see how they are not likly but how are they as you said in of themselfs illogical?
Agreed. This makes us highly irregular, no doubt, but to say illogical and then not back it up with a thing is irresponsible.

The gap theory is well, a theory. I believe Earth was made by God's hands in 6 literal days around 6,000 years ago. There is evidence, I know some good websites.

No. THis has been agrued against before.

A God would be a non-physical agent (metaphysical) and therefore not subject to our physical laws. So, in essence, time, gravity, and thermodynamical laws would not apply.
So you say but unlike the universe which is at least observable god not being bound by physical laws is purely conjecture

The big bang is conjecture as well but it is conjecture based on observation

The gap theory is well, a theory. I believe Earth was made by God's hands in 6 literal days around 6,000 years ago. There is evidence, I know some good websites.
Oh do show ... and no it is not a scientific theory it is closer to a hypothesis

The gap theory is well, a theory. I believe Earth was made by God's hands in 6 literal days around 6,000 years ago. There is evidence, I know some good websites.
Then LIST the good websites.

The Big Bang exploded, but what caused it to explode?

Were the physical laws already in existence before the explosion or were they created at the time of the explosion, which would mean the Big Bang and the physical laws created themselves?



Forget about that, where did the matter necessary for the Big Bang originate? Nothing can create itself, creation necessitates the prior existance of something to do the creating. After all, spontaneous generation is an absurdity.

So you say but unlike the universe which is at least observable god not being bound by physical laws is purely conjecture
The big bang is conjecture as well but it is conjecture based on observation

Yes, because in order for God to be metaphysical there has to be a metaphysical world in existence. Otherwise God has to be restricted by the physical laws.

That being said, if Jesus were God would he be required to follow natural laws because he took a physical form?

Including a god ...



You're a Catholic, you know very well that God is eternal, whereas the universe has been proven not to be.

Forget about that, where did the matter necessary for the Big Bang originate? Nothing can create itself, creation necessitates the prior existance of something to do the creating. After all, spontaneous generation is an absurdity.
That or just beyond our current collection of information ... which is why it is almost a “alpha” or “beta” version theory right now

One of the beauties about the scientific method is its ability to change the theory to fit reality not attempting to do the opposite when things don't line up

You're a Catholic, you know very well that God is eternal, whereas the universe has been proven not to be.
No not catholic sense the “falling out” and not christian sense a while after that

Oh do show ... and no it is not a scientific theory it is closer to a hypothesis

This (http://answersingenesis.org/) is a good site.

That or just beyond our current collection of information ... which is why it is almost a “alpha” or “beta” version theory right now

One of the beauties about the scientific method is its ability to change the theory to fit reality not attempting to do the opposite when things don't line up



Don't hold your breath on it, I doubt cosmologists will have a feasible explanation anytime soon (if ever).

Forget about that, where did the matter necessary for the Big Bang originate? Nothing can create itself, creation necessitates the prior existance of something to do the creating. After all, spontaneous generation is an absurdity.

The only possibility, therefore, is that matter has always existed; however, that would mean it was never created unless something existed before it, and that thing would have had to create itself in order to create the matter for the Big Bang.

Or even more important, what did the universe expand in to? What was outside of the physical world?

This (http://answersingenesis.org/) is a good site.
www.talkorigins.org is a good one as well :p

Don't hold your breath on it, I doubt cosmologists will have a feasible explanation anytime soon (if ever).
At least it is possible ... god being a non falsifiable influence is not possible to prove

And in the end we end up with your faith and my lack there of

www.talkorigins.org is a good one as well :p

Indeed. It's very informative. I prefer Answers in Genesis, but to each his own.

Indeed. It's very informative. I prefer Answers in Genesis, but to each his own.
Defiantly thats the beauty if freedom of belief ... in the end we can each go with our axioms

Indeed. It's very informative. I prefer Answers in Genesis, but to each his own.
I'm reading through this AiG site, and I have to say, I'm really not very impressed by it. I'm a Christian and all, but this is entirely unimpressive. It seems to me, so far, that you still have to be in the mind-set that "The word of the Bible is above all else" to believe this kind of stuff. And though I was raised heavily Catholic, I still don't see the claim that "The Bible and science go hand-in-hand".

Grr. Whatev, to each his own.

The earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Life appeared about 1-2 billion years later (yes I made a much bigger range then I am supposed to :)). Humans (well those monkey austro... ones) appeared tens of thousands of years ago (maybe 13,000).

Evolution is right, it is proved, the theory is unprovable, most of the Bible was said by one of the popes to be metaphorical.

The earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Life appeared about 1-2 billion years later (yes I made a much bigger range then I am supposed to :)). Humans (well those monkey austro... ones) appeared tens of thousands of years ago (maybe 13,000).

Evolution is right, it is proved, the theory is unprovable, most of the Bible was said by one of the popes to be metaphorical.

Evolution has not been proved. That's why it's a theory.

Oh, and here. (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp)

The only possibility, therefore, is that matter has always existed; however, that would mean it was never created unless something existed before it, and that thing would have had to create itself in order to create the matter for the Big Bang.

Or even more important, what did the universe expand in to? What was outside of the physical world?


Eventually, something has to have eternal existance to break the chain. The Universe is not that thing, as has been proven. The logical conclusion would be that a dimension/plane exists outside of time (i.e. the metaphysical).

Evolution has not been proved. That's why it's a theory.

Oh, and here. (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp)
You cant really “prove” anything definitively with the theory ... you can just work to increase probability and accuracy of description

Evolution has not been proved. That's why it's a theory.

Oh, and here. (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp)



Macroevolution, an essential aspect of evolution, cannot be proven...and don't give me the fruit flies business, they're still part of the genus Drosophila despite minor speciation.

Eventually, something has to have eternal existance to break the chain. The Universe is not that thing, as has been proven. The logical conclusion would be that a dimension/plane exists outside of time (i.e. the metaphysical).
Well that has not really been proved either ... new data changes theories

For example we could find our universe spawned off of another and that and it had sufficent enough different laws for self creation (just an example)

Evolution has not been proved. That's why it's a theory.

Oh, and here. (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp)


DC explained it better, but I'll give it a try.

Evolution-Proven True- When one species mutates into another gradually(ish)
Theory of Evolution-Unknown-How evolution works (example why something evolves)

Well that has not really been proved either ... new data changes theories

For example we could find our universe spawned off of another and that and it had sufficent enough different laws for self creation (just an example)



That just begs the question of that universe's origin :D

Anyway, the fact is that too many 'modern' christians are hard-line biblicists. I've had some long discussions on this and other facts with them, and the one thing I can say is that there is support for the 'million year gap' theory in the bible itself. At one point there is a statement about the nature of time to God that basically states that God doesn't experience time the way we do, IIRC, the text is something like 'To the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years but a day'. Hard line biblicists always take this literally, that the period is a fixed relationship. A much better way to view things is that God, being all powerful and all knowing, would use the processes involved with the modern theory of the creation of the universe and evolution -- after all, since he is all powerful, why not just start the ball rolling and let things happen on their own?

Now, since I've stuck my neck out this far and joined in on a quasi religious discussion (something I try to never do anymore) I'll go even farther and make it a point to mention that there are some things that have been mentioned in this thread that actually are proscribed by the bible. I'll leave it to the people here to look up the passages that actually mention it, but let me point people in the right direction: read the story of the cities of Sodom and Gommorah.

Other things that have been mentioned - 'economic socialism' and many others are just ideas that work on the small scale and fall apart if pushed to the natural extremes and used as a nations system of government. But anyway, I figure I've just turned myself into flamebait and it's time I shut up.

Macroevolution, an essential aspect of evolution, cannot be proven...and don't give me the fruit flies business, they're still part of the genus Drosophila despite minor speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Here is a start

That just begs the question of that universe's origin :D
Again you are working off of this universes axioms not necessarily the others ... maybe things in the other universe don't need creators ... but again just an example

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Here is a start



I thought I was the only one allowed to be lazy enough to post a website and let it do my debating for me :(

For example we could find our universe spawned off of another and that and it had sufficent enough different laws for self creation (just an example)

What if there were a infinity of universes each with a different God? Or even weirder, what if we are really exisiting inside of an atom that is part of an even larger universe, and the atoms in our universe each contain universes?

There could be an infinity of gods?

I thought I was the only one allowed to be lazy enough to post a website and let it do my debating for me :(
Lol nope :) I purposely did that because people have been doing the same in the thread ... I was not going to bother if other people were not (that and the amount of material they cover is amazing)

That just begs the question of that universe's origin :D

Time is only in the universe we are in (or maybe another), outside of our universe, (see first one of ()'s) therefore there is no starting point of the universe (the insides probably started 10-25 billion years ago)

What if there were a infinity of universes each with a different God? Or even weirder, what if we are really exisiting inside of an atom that is part of an even larger universe, and the atoms in our universe each contain universes?

There could be an infinity of gods?
Willimina I believed proposed such a theory

What if there were a infinity of universes each with a different God? Or even weirder, what if we are really exisiting inside of an atom that is part of an even larger universe, and the atoms in our universe each contain universes?

There could be an infinity of gods?



What if our atom is one in an experiment for nuclear fission in an infinitely larger universe :eek:


*A super-huge scientist begins saying 3...2...1... then we suddenly stop existing in a flash of light*

Time is only in the universe we are in (or maybe another), outside of our universe, (see first one of ()'s) therefore there is no starting point of the universe (the insides probably started 10-25 billion years ago)



But physicality necessitates time, elsewise there could be no existance. That universe would have to be metaphysical.

Willimina I believed proposed such a theory

Well, I'll have to look for the thread.

But physicality necessitates time, elsewise there could be no existance. That universe would have to be metaphysical.
... Working with axioms in this universe maybe ... not necessarily so if you are working with different constructs

What if our atom is one in an experiment for nuclear fission in an infinitely larger universe :eek:
*A super-huge scientist begins saying 3...2...1... then we suddenly stop existing in a flash of light*

That might be better than being part of an atom in a blade of grass that is cut off from the root; slowly dying out as its components break down.

Slow decline would be a real downer. At least the explosion is quick. ;)

Blah. This topic is starting to make my head spin.

... Working with axioms in this universe maybe ... not necessarily so if you are working with different constructs



But certain axioms of one physical universe would be universal (pardon the redundancy :p ) to all physical universes. After all, they wouldn't be physical if it were not true :D

But physicality necessitates time, elsewise there could be no existance. That universe would have to be metaphysical.

No, if you think about it, time is nothing important. Everything can exist without time, but it would be strange. What would happen to all the clocks????? (nothing, clocks work by a very simple (I was lying, I don't know so this is just a random guess) process in which the thingy turns the thingy and after a certain thingy more thingies...). There.

Blah. This topic is starting to make my head spin.

That's because we're approaching the limit of what we can concieve. There's almost a feeling of hitting a brick wall mentally when you think about certain concepts; you can't go any further. :cool:

Blah. This topic is starting to make my head spin.
Lol yeah and in the end all of us are still limited by our axioms so we can only really push it so far before we all come up short

But certain axioms of one physical universe would be universal (pardon the redundancy :p ) to all physical universes. After all, they wouldn't be physical if it were not true :D
Oh and what makes time a necessity? (and with pushing this ideas so far towards the “outer limits” we probably should not start a semantics argument)

No, if you think about it, time is nothing important. Everything can exist without time, but it would be strange. What would happen to all the clocks????? (nothing, clocks work by a very simple (I was lying, I don't know so this is just a random guess) process in which the thingy turns the thingy and after a certain thingy more thingies...). There.



Time is required for essence to come into existance :D

That might be better than being part of an atom in a blade of grass that is cut off from the root; slowly dying out as its components break down.

Slow decline would be a real downer. At least the explosion is quick. ;)

That wouldn't damage the atom. Besides, those things would contain other atoms with electrons and we would survive due to electronic propulsion, or the empty space would pass through us. If it was a nuclues to nucleus hit then we would be screwed (maybe result from fussion), or if a charged particle hit us really fast then we would be screwed (fission).

Time is required for essence to come into existance :D

No. It would make no sense if it was true (like everything outside of the universe).

Time is required for essence to come into existance :D
Why is that?

Oh and what makes time a necessity? (and with pushing this ideas so far towards the “outer limits” we probably should not start a semantics argument)



Oh, I'm not saying all universes require time. But action would be impossible without time (at least physical action), therefore we could not have originated from said universe.

Why is that?



Because the act of origination requires at least some quantity of time in order to be possible.

That wouldn't damage the atom. Besides, those things would contain other atoms with electrons and we would survive due to electronic propulsion, or the empty space would pass through us. If it was a nuclues to nucleus hit then we would be screwed (maybe result from fussion), or if a charged particle hit us really fast then we would be screwed (fission).

I was thinking more along the lines of what would happen as the compounds broke down and the interractions between the atoms changed; the difference wouldn't be destructive, but rather a major alteration in our reality.

Our universe would survive, but it would change. Electrons lost or gained would seriously change our universe.

What of covalent bonds? Perhaps dark matter is the result of us being bonded with another universe, and the covalent bond of the two atoms in the higher universe cause the overlap; our universe is their dark matter.

Any kind of fission or fusion would be bad for us, to say the least.

Oh, I'm not saying all universes require time. But action would be impossible without time (at least physical action), therefore we could not have originated from said universe.
Why so ... or are you and I working off our idea of linear flow of time rather then maybe a two or three dimensional “flow” of time

Because the act of origination requires at least some quantity of time in order to be possible.
Again we are trapped in our axioms ... linear time for one

Because the act of origination requires at least some quantity of time in order to be possible.

But what of things that can move backward in time, or faster than light, like tachyons? Would they have existed before the Big Bang, and therefore also be able to exist before creation?

Why so ... or are you and I working off our idea of linear flow of time rather then maybe a two or three dimensional “flow” of time



Under both models, time and matter eventually reduce to a singularity so it would not be possible.

But what of things that can move backward in time, or faster than light, like tachyons? Would they have existed before the Big Bang, and therefore also be able to exist before creation?



I heard a really interesting interview on the radio with Dr. Brian Greene and, I forget how, but he showed how it would be impossible to manipulate the future outcome if you traveled back in time.

Why so ... or are you and I working off our idea of linear flow of time rather then maybe a two or three dimensional “flow” of time

Time may exist in even higher dimensions than one or two, or even three. String theory operates in 11 dimensions, so time may exist at that many, or even more.

Under both models, time and matter eventually reduce to a singularity so it would not be possible.
Oh ? I have not heard that explained before

Time may exist in even higher dimensions than one or two, or even three. String theory operates in 11 dimensions, so time may exist at that many, or even more.
I have only browsed through string theory ... I should look into it more

I heard a really interesting interview on the radio with Dr. Brian Greene and, I forget how, but he showed how it would be impossible to manipulate the future outcome if you traveled back in time.

That is interesting, and brings up questions of determinism; if we can't change things after they happen, then does that mean we actually have no choice because only one option could exist?

That is interesting, and brings up questions of determinism; if we can't change things after they happen, then does that mean we actually have no choice because only one option could exist?



That's partially correct, true free will is limited by the laws of physics, however free will is entirely relative to us.

I have only browsed through string theory ... I should look into it more

Actually, there was an article about it in the most recent article of Discover. Very strange, although the mathematics were quite interesting.

That's partially correct, true free will is limited by the laws of physics, however free will is entirely relative to us.
So can it said to be truly free if it has limitations?

So can it said to be truly free if it has limitations?



Semantics I suppose, even if our choices are limited, if there are two or more decisions we can make it fits under my category of free will.

Semantics I suppose, even if our choices are limited, if there are two or more decisions we can make it fits under my category of free will.
(Just a comment ... you are a lot nicer to discuss with when we stay out of the biblical translation arena) lol

That's partially correct, true free will is limited by the laws of physics, however free will is entirely relative to us.

So there are an infinity of future universes that hinge on each decision we make, but they are neither existent nor nonexistent until we make the particular decisions? Seems like a version of Schrödinger's Cat.

(Just a comment ... you are a lot nicer to discuss with when we stay out of the biblical translation arena) lol



*guards her Romans 1 fiercely* Rawr! :D

So there are an infinity of future universes that hinge on each decision we make, but they are neither existent nor nonexistent until we make the particular decisions? Seems like a version of Schrödinger's Cat.



I suppose so :)

Manipulate gravity? Show me an example.

Those substances are NOT living, though.

And since when are cells non-living particles?
Putting a pile of matter together works pretty good. But the good folks at CERN will likely put another method to the test.

Carbon is pretty much inert. Get enough of it together, a few other elements, in the right configurations in a sack of mostly water, all of a sudden it can be pretty interesting.

No. THis has been agrued against before.

A God would be a non-physical agent (metaphysical) and therefore not subject to our physical laws. So, in essence, time, gravity, and thermodynamical laws would not apply.
That's just a bunch of nonsense. Kook-speak that barely makes it as a hypothesis.

Forget about that, where did the matter necessary for the Big Bang originate? Nothing can create itself, creation necessitates the prior existance of something to do the creating. After all, spontaneous generation is an absurdity.
The matter you're refering to froze out as a by product of the Big Bang. (Water:Energy::Ice:Matter) Again, this is well understood. An astronomy survey course, or even a lecture series that is open to the public, would no doubt cover this in a simple yet complete manner. Or there's any one of THOUSANDS of books on the subject.

In the interests of premption: As to the diversionary question about what caused the Big Bang, one could quite plausibly argue that it was outside the perview of our universe* and is more of a philosophical concern, but there are hypothesies which may prove testable. (ekpyrotic universe for instance)

*If you lived in scrambled eggs, you might be able to work out that the universe, as you could percieve it, was once a yoke, and perhaps even that that yoke was once an egg. But asking what came before the egg or how did the egg crack, while perhaps interesting questions are ones that hold a small promise of definative answers.

When God deigns to miracle an already assembled and better microchip to someone who prays real hard I'll look into Christian (but Not Catholic, they officially leave the science to the scientists) "theories" a little closer. As it is, Science has been crushing ALL religions in bettering people's lives for about four centuries.

Putting a pile of matter together works pretty good. But the good folks at CERN will likely put another method to the test.

Carbon is pretty much inert. Get enough of it together, a few other elements, in the right configurations in a sack of mostly water, all of a sudden it can be pretty interesting.


That's just a bunch of nonsense. Kook-speak that barely makes it as a hypothesis.


The matter you're refering to froze out as a by product of the Big Bang. (Water:Energy::Ice:Matter) Again, this is well understood. An astronomy survey course, or even a lecture series that is open to the public, would no doubt cover this in a simple yet complete manner. Or there's any one of THOUSANDS of books on the subject.

In the interests of premption: As to the diversionary question about what caused the Big Bang, one could quite plausibly argue that it was outside the perview of our universe* and is more of a philosophical concern, but there are hypothesies which may prove testable. (ekpyrotic universe for instance)

*If you lived in scrambled eggs, you might be able to work out that the universe, as you could percieve it, was once a yoke, and perhaps even that that yoke was once an egg. But asking what came before the egg or how did the egg crack, while perhaps interesting questions are ones that hold a small promise of definative answers.

When God deigns to miracle an already assembled and better microchip to someone who prays real hard I'll look into Christian (but Not Catholic, they officially leave the science to the scientists) "theories" a little closer. As it is, Science has been crushing ALL religions in bettering people's lives for about four centuries.


So much for the air of congeniality :( . Ok, I'll play: supposing energy converted into matter through stasis, energy itself requires an origin. For every effect, there must be a cause.

*guards her Romans 1 fiercely* Rawr! :D
Lol :) such is life

Any Christians here believe in the Gap Theory where there's a gap of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2? Any non-Christians think it's a better theory than the 6000 year old Earth theory? I just thought I'd get some opinions on the subject, you know for shits and giggles.

For more information for those who have no idea what the hell I'm talking about you can go here: http://www.christiangeology.com/


Oh yeah, just in case your wondering as a Christian I do believe in the theory.

Heh, well, Earth is prettymuch far more than 6000 years old (btw, i don't get it why they're still quoting James Ussher on this!?).

Regarding your question, it's actually vice versa: Genesis 1:2 was written *before* 1:1, and the time between the two of them is approximately 500 years. Genesis 1:2 was written approximately 1000 BC, while Genesis 1:1 was written around 600-500 BC (Babylonian captivity). ;)

Heh, well, Earth is prettymuch far more than 6000 years old (btw, i don't get it why they're still quoting James Ussher on this!?).

Regarding your question, it's actually vice versa: Genesis 1:2 was written *before* 1:1, and the time between the two of them is approximately 500 years. Genesis 1:2 was written approximately 1000 BC, while Genesis 1:1 was written around 600-500 BC (Babylonian captivity). ;)




The ultimate escape hatch that literalists can employ: Perhaps God created the universe with the appearance of age instead of actual age. :D

The ultimate escape hatch that literalists can employ: Perhaps God created the universe with the appearance of age instead of actual age. :D

Yes, and that's not testable. :rolleyes:

Yes, and that's not testable. :rolleyes:



Yeah, literal creationism has the benefit of not needing physical proof since it relies entirely on a metaphysical Agent :D

The matter you're refering to froze out as a by product of the Big Bang. (Water:Energy::Ice:Matter) Again, this is well understood. An astronomy survey course, or even a lecture series that is open to the public, would no doubt cover this in a simple yet complete manner. Or there's any one of THOUSANDS of books on the subject.

I'm not convinced. you say the matter comes from the energy but that where the energy comes from is philosophy? am i understanding correctly?

there are some q's science can't answer, origin of life, cause of big bang/original energy for it. you can either use religion to fill the gap, have religion but keep it seperate to the lack of science, or not know and still have no religion.

6000 years, man that's not long. It just defies so much science i've learned. Some of the webpages i was reading quoted earlier seemed to have some fairly dodgy looking science supporting them. bed time.

Yeah, literal creationism has the benefit of not needing physical proof since it relies entirely on a metaphysical Agent :D

Of course that causes it to have the distinct problem of its evidence being circumstancial at best. :p

I'm not convinced. you say the matter comes from the energy but that where the energy comes from is philosophy? am i understanding correctly?

there are some q's science can't answer, origin of life, cause of big bang/original energy for it. you can either use religion to fill the gap, have religion but keep it seperate to the lack of science, or not know and still have no religion.
I don't just say matter comes from energy. One of the inevitable deductions of light having the same speed in all frames of reference is that matter *is* a kind of energy. (E=mc^2) Much in the same way ice is hard cold water, matter is hard cold energy. You can think of various collider projects as shooting clocks at each other time and time again to see what they're made of. But what they're really doing is "melting" various states of matter. While our models are far from complete, they do a good job of predicting certain things we observe to be true at all but the most esoteric extremes.

While there are testable hypothesies about where the energy comes from (ekpyrotic universe, et al), ultimately there comes time when we can pose a question we know has no definitive answer. And that's where the dividing line between science, and pure philosophy and religion is. The origins of life will almost certainly be revlealed by science, at least in broad brush strokes. What precipitated the big bang? Maybe, I wouldn't hold my breath, but science is nothing if not surprising.

Neo Rogolia,
As you may have noted, I had premptively given you something to look into (ekpyrotic universe) which might even prove testable in our lifetime. Which is fortunate because the occasional intuited theory wait centuries for proof, and decades are not at all uncommon. That said, your hypothesis boils down to the anthropomorphic principle. ("God/The Universe were like that when we got here. QED.") Even if it were true, unless God comes down to give us the good/bad news, it's not particularly satisfying. What if doctors employed it to stop looking for answers before the discovery of germs?

So much for the air of congeniality :( . Ok, I'll play: supposing energy converted into matter through stasis, energy itself requires an origin. For every effect, there must be a cause.

Then what was the cause of God?

The ultimate escape hatch that literalists can employ: Perhaps God created the universe with the appearance of age instead of actual age.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH220.html

Romans 1:20 says that God is to be "understood from what has been made." The apparent age claim says we cannot trust what has been made.

Do I need to pull out that stack of Bible quotes that state that God cannot lie and therefore could not possibly create a whole universe purely to mislead us? In any case, why do something so incredibly perverse?