is the gap theory possible?

Translation of question for my fellow atheists:

"I believe in nonsense. Can you explain to me how my nonsensical beliefs are true? I do not want to hear answers that rely on facts and evidence because they do not agree with my confirmation bias. I'm not looking for knowledge, I'm just looking for someone who thinks the same way I do on other issues to tell me what to think on this equally ridiculous 'theory'".

First, don't try and claim that you are REALLY thinking for yourself. If this were true, then you wouldn't be relying on ANYTHING said in the Bible - you CANNOT claim that the Bible is the word of God, even if (for whatever reason) you are certain that there is a god. Almost every other religious text that is supposedly written by a deity has just as valid a claim to be 'the word of god' as the Bible.

Specifically looking at the gap theory (which, like YEC is NOT a theory - at least not in the same sense as the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Biological Evolution), there is absolutely no evidence that would support it as being true (and as for creationism, NOTHING in the Bible can be considered evidence - nothing written by a person/being can be considered evidence that what that person/being is claiming happened actually did happen).

BTW, there is absolutely no doubt that life did evolve, and continues to do so, and there is also evidence to support the Big Bang - conversely there is no evidence to support the stories in the Bible (other than that at least some of the stories included real places and real people - it the same way that modern fiction often does).

Edit (following posting of 'additional details':

In actual fact almost all of the answers that you have been given can be considered polite. Yes they are telling you that your views are biased because of your belief in god and the Bible - which is something that you didn't want to hear, but telling someone that they are wrong in both what they think, and how they are thinking, does not automatically make the answerer rude, or lacking in manners. Disagreeing does NOT equal a lack of manners.

'B' has actually 'summed up' your original post in a way that I completely agree with - I think that he DOES know what he is talking about, and has probably answered many people with similar views to yours before.

Almost by your own admission I DO know what you are doing. In your original question you stated VERY CLEARLY that you would not even consider that the Bible could not be completely true, or that there could be any truth in the Theory of Biological Evolution or The Big Bang Theory. In other words, you are looking for ways to confirm your belief that the Bible is true and flat out rejecting scientific theories that seem (to you) to contradict the Bible. If you really were thinking for yourself you would be open to ALL possibilities (I am - I have just seen no evidence whatsoever that ANY god even exists, let alone that the Bible is Gods word, but I have seen plenty of evidence of evolution, and there is also evidence for the Big Bang).

I said that 'The Gap Theory' and 'creationism' are not theories in the same way as 'The Theory of Biological Evolution' and 'The Big Bang", they are NOT. The last two are well supported SCIENTIFIC theories evidence supporting them ('mountains' of it in the case of evolution), and KNOWN that holds up to scrutiny against them. Conversely the first two have NO evidence supporting them, and a lot of evidence against them.

The 'odds' of something happening are irrelevant, and impossible to calculate in the case of the Big Bang because how it happened is not known (so the figure you quote is clearly made up). Science does NOT assume answers when they are not known, they may come up with a hypothesis to be tested, but if there is NO evidence then they leave something as unexplained.

'Laws' are a scientific concept that explain the way that some matter naturally behaves under certain circumstances because of the natural properties of the matter that is involved - there is no reason to invoke a supernatural being (with no evidence) to try and explain the way that matter behaves.

I don't understand why anybody would believe anything from the Bible. It's just an ancient book of myths that was written by primitive men who believed that the Earth was the fixed center of the universe, and it was flat and covered by a large solid dome called the firmament. The Bible endorses genocide, slavery, rape, incest, human and animal sacrifice (i.e. Jesus and ritual sacrifice of animals), and many other evils. People often pick out what they think is good and ignore the bad.

You claim to think, yet you also apparently refuse to consider anything that disagrees with what you believe. This is not thinking; it's repeating what you were taught. You haven't done your homework, which is to educate yourself. Many theists have not, because they are satisfied with the simplistic answer, "God did it." The god of the gaps argument centers on the fact that as science has expanded our knowledge, this god explanation has been steadily pushed back. Science has shown that there's no need for gods to explain the traditional reasons for a god -- origin of the universe, origin of life, origin of species, origin of humans, origin of morality.

Science is the use of empirical evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process. You should try studying it, so you won't be so ignorant of what is known. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are supported by extensive data. There is no reliable data supporting the some-god-did-it hypothesis, and especially not the Yahweh-did-it hypothesis.

The "gap theory" and "day-age theory" are fairly new attempts to converge the Bible record and evolution. Neither theory can hold up under close study.

The days of the creation-week were of the same type as the ordinary Hebrew work-week. Note: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Jehovah thy God . . . for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. . .” (Ex. 20:11).

Obviously, the Jewish people understood what a "day" meant.

Each “day” of Genesis 1 was equally divided into periods of light and darkness. If the day represented millions of years, then there were obviously corresponding epochs of darkness. The vegetation which was brought into existence on the third day could never have survived those alternating periods of darkness.

The Scriptures teach that mankind has existed “from the beginning of the creation” (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6; Romans 1:20), thus, virtually “from the foundation of the world” (Luke 11:50-51). Evolution contends that humanity’s age is but a tiny fraction of the Earth’s, thus, man is a “relative newcomer” to the planet.

First, let me just say this: intelligence is not about what you know, it is about what you are able to comprehend and apply.

That being said, if one is given limited information, and can apply it to the world, then said person is not stupid. If one is given more information, but still holds on to the initial concepts EVEN THOUGH the new ideas better explain the world around this individual, THEN said person is stupid.

So now let me get to your gap theory: it has been proven wrong not just by evolution, but also through physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and just about every branch of science. See, there is a fundamental difference between SCIENCE and RELIGION that most theologians miss completely:

SCIENCE tries to discover the CAUSES for the EFFECTS we see in nature.

RELIGION claims the EFFECTS we see in nature by stating the CAUSE is god.

For SCIENCE, there is always the tug-o-war between empirical data and theory. Often, theories are adjusted, tweaked, or thrown out all together as new data is discovered. Einstein had this problem with Relativity which is why he split the theory between General and Special Relativity AND why he created his cosmological constant (which cosmologist have found to be extremely interesting as new data is discovered). However, through meticulous studies, extremely complicated mathematics, and a healthy dose of logic, SCIENCE has been able to take us to understanding the moments prior to the Big Bang, how old the universe is (13.72 billion years old) and a recently discovered phenomena that exists with empty space ("dark energy" and its repulsive force that counteract gravity).

With RELIGION there is no acceptance of new ideas, there is no criticism of existing theories and anything outside of the realm of the original concepts is labeled "Wrong". So, you see, with RELIGION there is not growth of knowledge. If one only learns about RELIGION and is never presented with anything else, then said person is not stupid for believing, and applying those concepts to reality. But we live in a time where that information is readily available, so when RELIGION bolts its doors, shuts its windows and refuses to acknowledge anything else, that is called being IGNORANT to reality, and is a form of stupidity.

Don't forget, the Big Bang theory was first introduced by a Christian monk (Georges Lemaître). He understood that he could keep his religious values WITHOUT accepting the bible stories as pure fact. THAT is where religion gets into trouble.

Religious yabbos who want to try to prattle on about their science, would look less idiotic, if they learned what words men *in science*.

You DON'T have a theory. In science, this is what it means:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

The bible has been disproven so much on matters of scientific fact that anyone using it to try to do science is only deluding themselves. You didn't think for yourself, you regurgitated total religious BS. So, you're a liar, too.

All it is, is a pathetic reach for Christians to attempt to reconcile the false claims in the Bible (that was written by bronze aged people who had no knowledge of dinosaurs or other primitive animals as well as very limitied knowledge of the mechanisms of our planet or the universe) with facts they can't deny like the fossil record.

Disagree.

The GAP theory makes the most sense to me.

The only gaps is the gaps of real knowledge from your brain.