SavedOnebyGrace

Maybe we can agree on one thing, neither one of us believes in evolution. We both believe in a six day of creation, one day of rest. Some of Jesus' comments should be enough to disprove the Day-Age interpretation of creation.

I did. You said it was unclear. We are just not going to agree on this matter.

Your not alone. I have found the white space between words and sentences has gotten really really small! When did that happen? I thought he wrote about 1000 years ago but during a Google search, it seems multiple Rabbis wrote about this topic 2700 years ago, I was surprised. Also, I believe you're right that at least some were influenced by the Kabbalah. Another thing, Peter, Jude and others quoted from books not in the typical Protestant Canon. The book of Enoch is one, Jubilees another. The others I can't remember at the moment. My first exposure to the topic comes from Dr. Finis Jennings Dake's KJV Bible. I only recommend his Bible to mature Christians because the commentary is occasionally flawed. But that's the bible I read 30+ years ago. Today, I mostly read the NIV, NASB, HCSB or ESV.

The second link you provided takes me back to this thread. The first link is so full of factual and theological errors, that I will have to examine each one a piece at a time. I won't be holding my breath. You still haven't commented on St. Augustine's interpretation either.

http://5. The history of Gap Theory: http://www.dcnet2000.com/~drpatrick/page129.html

The Gap Theory as Explained by St. Augustine (354-430 AD) “Chapter VIII—Heaven and Earth were made “In the beginning;” afterwards the world, during six days, from shapeless matter. For very wonderful is this corporeal heaven; of which firmament between water and water, the second day, after the creation of light, Thou saidst, Let it be made, and it was made. Which firmament Thou calledst heaven; the heaven, that is, to this earth and sea, which Thou madest the third day, by giving a visible figure to the formless matter, which Thou madest before all days. For already hadst Thou made both an heaven, before all days; but that was the heaven of this heaven; because In the beginning Thou hadst made heaven and earth. But this same earth which Thou madest was formless matter, because it was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep…”

Beautiful post.

Order is contrary to science. Everything is subject to chaos. Erosion, decay and death are our future without God. Very good observation and post.

My favorite genius is John Von Neuman. He was a genius on multiple levels who invented Game Theory (as an economics analysis/predictive tool) while working with Oppenheimer, Einstein, Nash (Nobel Prize winner for his Nash Equilibrium addition to Game Theory) and others on the Manhattan Project. For anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann He converted back to Roman Catholicism before his death.

Science is breaking down the molecules of the universe, of life to basic atomic particles and subatomic particles. But science cannot explain life. God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. How does science explain the difference if the animate and inanimate are all made from the same molecules down to the subatomic level?

I found the following Godel quote interesting: "I like Islam, it is a consistent idea of religion and open-minded." Kurt Gödel as quoted by Hao Wang in "A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy", Hao Wang. The MIT Press. 1996. Seems like Godel was not so smart afterall, IMHO.

I have to agree; most of us don't read posts over two or three paragraphs. Call it the human condition or whatever but the fact remains; if you want to make your point, keep it simple and TO the point. Endless references aren't necessary. Also, when responding to a LONG, LONG post, quoting only the part you're addressing keeps readers focused on your point. If you notice, my posts tend to be short. It's a frequent ploy of the OEC believers to respond in long lengthy posts that nobody reads, or write attack replies questioning someone's faith. I haven't seen that here yet, but I wouldn't be surprised when it comes.

The Gap Theory is impossible grammatically in the Hebrew and impossible theologically given that sin did not exist until Adam. Since the Gap Theory was first proposed by a Jewish rabbi over 1000 years ago, you are wrong.

Quted from "Top 10 Most Overrated “Geniuses” - Itsnobody (or anonymous). The rankings are based upon how overrated the “geniuses” starting from the lesser overrated geniuses ending with the most overrated genius. #10 – Bill Gates I don’t know why anyone would consider Bill Gates to be a genius, it’s a mystery to me. I’m not sure if Bill Gates belongs on this list since I don’t consider him to be a genius of any kind. Since some atheists keep saying that “Bill Gates invented the computer” or something foolish like that I decided to put him on this list. Bill Gates never invented the computer, the keyboard, the mouse, the GUI desktop concept, or anything like that. Yet for some reason many people really believe that he did. The actual pioneers of the computer were people like Charles Babbage, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann. (John von Neumann is one of the most under-rated scientists in my opinion. While working with Oppenheimer and Einstein on the Manhattan Project, oh he invented the science of Game Theory. - Nobody-2441.) The first computer to use the desktop mouse GUI was the Xerox Alto. #9 – James D. Watson James D. Watson and Francis Crick are universally hailed by biologists as great geniuses for being the DNA co-discoverers. So why is he overrated? Firstly, the data Watson and Crick used was collected by Rosalind Franklin who is basically ignored. Secondly, proposing a double helix structure for DNA given x-ray data requires little ingenuity or intelligence. I guess this explains why Watson’s IQ is only 124 (Crick’s IQ was supposedly only 115). Thirdly, according to Watson himself Crick was more clever than him. There are contributions that require little intellect but lots of ingenuity, there are contributions that require lots of intellect but little ingenuity, and there are contributions that require both intellect and ingenuity. This contribution however, doesn’t require neither ingenuity nor intellect, just simple observations. If Watson and Crick didn’t discover the double-helix structure of DNA then virtually any other biologist(s) would have given the data. It’s a contribution based off simple observations that would’ve happened by virtually any biologist, not a special kind of contribution. #8 – Michio Kaku People who watch TV probably think Michio Kaku is one of the greatest living physicists, but physicists don’t. There’s probably not even one physicist who would rank Michio Kaku within the top 50 or even the top 100 best living physicists. Michio Kaku has made some contributions, but he still isn’t even close to being one of the best physicists in modern times. Michio Kaku is more of a media figure who writes on popular science and appears on radio and TV shows a lot. Other physicists who are regarded as the best living physicist like Edward Witten are virtually ignored in the media. #7 – Stephen Hawking Stephen Hawking is overrated in the same manner that Michio Kaku is. People who watch TV probably think he’s one of the best living physicists even though he isn’t. Just like Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking is a media figure. Other physicists like Steven Weinberg and Ed Witten are completely ignored in the media. Just as with Michio Kaku there’s probably no working physicist who considers him to be the best physicist or even close even though the media portrays him to be the best physicist. #6 – William James Sidis When people talk about prodigies William J. Sidis is almost always mentioned. He was an extraordinarily fast learner and had an estimated IQ of 250-300. There are many web sites dedicated to Sidis and his supposed “genius”. They will always mention how fast Sidis learned this, what he calculated, etc….but what about Sidis’s contributions? William Sidis doesn’t have any significant contributions. That’s why he’s overrated. What’s so special about being a super-fast learner and contributing nothing significant? There is nothing special about it. So what’s Sidis’s most significant contribution? A perpetual calendar? #5 – Benjamin Franklin When people who have no knowledge of science think about who made electrical technology possible they probably think of Benjamin Franklin. The only problem is that Benjamin Franklin contributed very little to science and has very little to do with the advent of electrical technology. The “key” story about Benjamin Franklin may also be a myth. He like other overrated geniuses on this list is just another media figure. The actual scientists that were primarily responsible for making electrical technology possible were Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell who are both completely ignored in the media. For Benjamin Franklin being so falsely associated with electrical technology he ranks as the 5th most overrated genius. #4 – Thomas Edison When people think of inventors Thomas Edison almost always come to mind. They probably think of a light bulb or a phonograph. He is a very celebrated figure in the media. So why is Edison overrated? Edison has over 1000 patents (the 3rd most prolific inventor) but Edison bought many patents and was not the originator of many of the ideas. Edison had setup many different labs and had many others working on inventions. So the vast majority of Edison’s inventions do not independently come from Edison. Edison was not even the first one to invent the incandescent light bulb. Edison and his team invented an improved version of the incandescent light bulb, many had existed before. Fluorescent light bulbs though are much more efficient and an overall better invention than incandescent light bulbs. Other genius engineers like Nikola Tesla are almost ignored in the media. Edison was not the genius inventor as portrayed by the media but instead a businessman. Since Edison did not work independently and was mostly a businessman he ranks as the 4th most overrated genius. #3 – Albert Einstein So who’s the person who’s so associated with the word genius that the image or thought of him comes in mind when the word “genius” is mentioned? It’s got to be Einstein. Einstein is overrated for many reasons. Many people seem to believe that Einstein was a great mathematician. They probably saw on TV “E=mc2” and thought he must have been a great mathematician but in reality Einstein was not a mathematician at all. Mathematicians make mathematical contributions, Einstein applied already existing mathematics (in this case Riemannian geometry). Another reason that Einstein is overrated is because many people think his ideas were original, but they were not. Einstein seems to have gotten a lot of his ideas directly from Michael Faraday, who Einstein was a fan of. Faraday who is ignored in the media tried to unify gravity with other forces long before Einstein. Faraday had long emphasized his belief that everything was unified as one (magnetism, light, gravity, etc…) primarily because of his religion. The main difference between Einstein’s ideas and Faraday’s is that Einstein added in the space-time dimension, but this idea is not original either since it had already appeared in science fiction novels. Einstein is also overrated for being known by many as the smartest person ever. Some people have “estimated” his IQ to be over 200 (which is most likely impossible). People like Newton, Archimedes, Gauss, and others were likely much smarter than Einstein but they are not portrayed as such in the media. Since the mathematics for General Relativity came from Riemann, a lot of Einstein’s ideas are inspired from Faraday, and for Einstein being so synonymous with the word “genius” he ranks as the 3rd most overrated genius. #2 – Pythagoras of Samos When non-mathematicians think of the best mathematicians Pythagoras likely comes to mind. Most non-mathematicians probably think Pythagoras was the #1 mathematician or close to #1, but mathematicians don’t. In reality Pythagoras is not the best mathematician or even close. People like Newton, Euler, Gauss, Riemann, and many other mathematicians who are completely ignored in the media for their mathematical brilliance were much better much mathematicians than Pythagoras by far. Euler and Gauss (the mathematicians that are arguably the two best of all time) are virtually ignored in the media. I wonder what things would be like if Euler and Gauss were mentioned in the media as much as Pythagoras is. The Pythagorean theorem and a proof of the Pythagorean theorem are not difficult things to discover. There exists literally hundreds of different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. Most of what Pythagoras and his students did are not difficult to discover or re-discover. Just compare re-discovering the Pythagorean theorem to rediscovering Euler’s identity and it’s easy to see which requires more ingenuity. Even though it’s true that Pythagoras and his students made some contributions Pythagoras is still far from ranking within the top 10 or top 20 best mathematicians, which is why he is one of the most super-overrated figures. Since the vast majority of Pythagoras’s contributions are easy to re-discover and since Pythagoras is synonymous with the word “mathematician” despite being far from the best mathematician he ranks as the 2nd most overrated genius. #1 – Leonardo da Vinci So who’s the most super-overrated genius of all time? It’s Leonardo da Vinci. Da Vinci is universally hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time. He is celebrated for his art, inventions, science, and being multi-talented. Leonardo da Vinci is the most overrated genius of all time mainly because of the many outlandish claims made about how much of a genius he was. Many different sources have “estimated” Da Vinci’s IQ to be over 200. This however is quite impossible. It’s literally impossible that Da Vinci had an IQ of 200+. Whenever asked for legitimate reasons as to how Da Vinci could of had an IQ of 200+ people will usually respond with an appeal to authority saying something like “this expert said so” or “this person said so”. Da Vinci himself said “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory”. In order to correctly estimate IQ you have to estimate how well someone would be able to answer the most difficult IQ-style questions. I know that Da Vinci’s IQ would not be any higher than 160 based on some simple observations: – At least half of Da Vinci’s inventions failed when tested, this does not show high IQ at all – Da Vinci tried to learn mathematics but didn’t really get very far – Da Vinci was not a super-fast learner (the main sign of high IQ) – Da Vinci’s works do not require a high IQ Nothing Da Vinci did demonstrates that he had an IQ of 200 or higher or even close to that. Da Vinci is so overrated that people think his IQ was higher than Newton’s. But how could that be possible? Newton did things like solving the brachistochrone problem in a few hours, but what did Leonardo da Vinci do to demonstrate his intelligence? I would be surprised if Da Vinci had an IQ higher than 140. Da Vinci’s inventions have also been grossly exaggerated. Da Vinci drew drawings and different people have personally interpreted some of the same drawings to mean different things. This has been the case with Da Vinci’s supposed calculator. Objectors once again claim this device wouldn’t actually work and isn’t actually a drawing of a calculator, but people personally interpret it to be so. This is also the case with Da Vinci’s supposed helicopter. It’s not really a helicopter, it’s just an aerial screw. Helicopters are closer to Chinese bamboo toys than they are to Da Vinci’s sketches. The media and others simply overrated Da Vinci so much they decided to call it a helicopter (some how). Da Vinci never actually built or tested most of his inventions and at least half of them failed when tested. The vast majority of the models of Da Vinci’s designs that really do work are modified versions of Da Vinci’s designs or strange interpretations of what Da Vinci’s designs mean. In order to get most of Da Vinci’s designs to work modifications are necessary. The more people test out Da Vinci’s designs the more people find that his designs don’t work. What’s genius about coming up with failed designs? Basically anyone who has artistic talent, an IQ of 130 or higher, and spends all their time focusing on inventing new machines would be able to come up with lots of inventions (and having half of them fail). Da Vinci being far ahead of his time is also an exaggerated claim. Da Vinci was born in the year 1452 AD, not the year 287 BC like Archimedes. Basically everything Da Vinci had done had been independently re-discovered without much effort by others within 200 years or less or had been done prior to Da Vinci. Since at least half of Da Vinci’s designs didn’t work I’m not sure how much it would have mattered if Da Vinci’s writings had been discovered much earlier. During Da Vinci’s time being ahead of your time didn’t take much. Other much better engineers like Heron, Archimedes, Al-Jazari, and Tesla are ignored in the media. Al-Jazari for instance pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 200 years, he invented one of the first programmable analog computers, camshaft, segmented gears, and more. His book is much more detailed than Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings, all of his designs work, and even though he pre-dates Da Vinci he is completely ignored in the media. Or what about the super-genius engineer and mathematician Archimedes, who pre-dates Da Vinci by more than 1600 years. He is also ignored in the media. Da Vinci is perhaps one of the greatest genius idiots of all time. For Da Vinci being so super-overrated that people think his IQ was 200+, for at least half of Da Vinci’s designs not working, for his inventions being grossly overrated, and for the media and many others super-overrating him he ranks as the #1 very most overrated person of all time. There doesn’t even exist one other genius in all of human history as overrated as Da Vinci.

The Gap Theory is impossible grammatically in the Hebrew and impossible theologically given that sin did not exist until Adam. Statements made without supporting evidence should be ignored. So that's what I choose to do here.

Books about the Gap Theory: http://www.creationdays.dk/books/book.creation.php Noah's Flood (Large Local Flood) http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

I believe the Gap Theory is both correct and scientific. I also believe in 6 days creation / 1 day of rest, as described in the Bible, not the Day-Age interpretation. The Jewish people would not have understood this Day - Age concept. So I take the Bible literally, with a Gap between Genesis 1 and 3, with the condition of the earth as described in Genesis 2. Genesis 3 starts the 6/7 days of recreation to put things right. For example, the Sun wasn't created at this time, but was already created in Genesis 1:1. But of because of God's first judgment on earth, the sun and moon were not visible. Someone mentioned Noah's Flood. Noah's Flood was a large local flood, not a global flood. The word for earth here and elsewhere means land. The Jewish people did not have a concept of a sphere in space at this time. So when they say whole earth, they can mean whole land and it would be scripturally correct. ======================================================================================================================= Scientific? OK, Go ahead.... The Scientific Method: Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon Step 2: Lit Review Step 3: Hypothesis Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT Step 5: Analyze Data Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis Step 7: Report Results ?? What Gap? .... (Genesis 1:1-3) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. {2} And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. {3} And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Looks like Genesis 1:2 is between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3. We must be reading different Bible's.... (Genesis 1:14-16) " And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. {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." ?? Please Identify Specifically in Scripture: GOD'S First Judgement on the Earth......? AND, Where the Sun and Moon were not visible prior to Day 4......? What about this... (Genesis 7:19) "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." Are you saying there were "High Hills" that existed that weren't under the "Whole Heaven"?? Additional Questions: 1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark? Wasn't there animals some place else? 2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move? 3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a Local Flood? 4. If the Flood was local, then did God break his promise not to Flood the "world" again? Hasn't the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah? 5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? Couldn't they simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range? (Matthew 24:37-39) " But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. {38} For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, {39} And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." So if people would have happened to not live in the Mesopotamia vicinity they would have not been affected and would've escaped GOD's Judgement. What did Jesus mean when he likened the coming "End Time" Judgement of "all" men to..."in the days of Noah"? Is the coming judgement a partial judgement? This is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy). How does what concepts the Jews knew or did not know impact whether the The Flood was Local or Global....? And How do you know what the Jews knew or didn't know @ this time....? A statement like that puts into question the oral tradition of passing the OT from generation to generation. Is that your intent?

I believe the Gap Theory is both correct and scientific. I prefer to believe the Bible, which makes no room for the gap theory. The Bible also teaches a global flood not a local flood. It is so much easier to take God at His word than to try and mold it around what you want to believe. And from a salvation standpoint, it makes no difference. I take the Bible literally, that's why I believe in the Gap Theory. That's why I believe in a large local flood. I take the Bible literally. You believe the Bible contains no gap and also take a literal view. The language leaves both views to be acceptable. This is not a view that should divide Christians. From the standpoint of salvation, it makes no difference.

I believe the Gap Theory is both correct and scientific. I also believe in 6 days creation / 1 day of rest, as described in the Bible, not the Day-Age interpretation. The Jewish people would not have understood this Day - Age concept. So I take the Bible literally, with a Gap between Genesis 1 and 3, with the condition of the earth as described in Genesis 2. Genesis 3 starts the 6/7 days of recreation to put things right. For example, the Sun wasn't created at this time, but was already created in Genesis 1:1. But of because of God's first judgment on earth, the sun and moon were not visible. Someone mentioned Noah's Flood. Noah's Flood was a large local flood, not a global flood. The word for earth here and elsewhere means land. The Jewish people did not have a concept of a sphere in space at this time. So when they say whole earth, they can mean whole land and it would be scripturally correct.

I agree. The same situation with actors. Some actors get so much fame and are so adored, they risk discouraging kids who feel they can't live up to the lofty standards. You will disqualify the majority of people in science when they feel like they won't measure up. People should stop praising famous actors. I agree with you 100% about actors. Here's an article about the top 10 over-rated geniuses of all time. **Link removed**

As an engineer, I've used Newton Physics and Einstein Physics. Both give correct answers, but to different degrees of accuracy. Scientists have been struggling with a "theory of everything" for many years. To get the math to work out, they've proposed numerous new theories from "string theory", the "big bang" (which if true, was soundless except for God's word), first ten then eleven dimensions, etc. Somewhere outside of space and time, God's probably having a good laugh as each scientist hits a dead end.

Carl Sagan is greatly overrated as a "scientist".