When working through the possible proofs or evidence for a position, it is incumbent on the one wishing to strengthen a certain position to bring evidence to the table that supports his position. Requiring the advocate of the understood and obvious standard to then prove the nonvalidity of the new and unproven position is a cop-out of logical integrity.
The text states:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
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.
From the text, which is our primary and most significant clue, we can not reasonably determine whether there was, or was not a large amount of time between the first sentence and the subsequent ones. However, it would be a questionable and possibly dangerous prospect to set a precedent of perceiving holes in meaning and presuming ourselves as having the right to fill them with whatever our minds can think up that seems to fit to us.
This "filling in the holes" is something that happens often, largely without our own awareness. But it is dangerous, and although it can be harmless at the beginning, can lead to error with increasingly negative repercussions. In short, it is a good policy to believe what the scripture says, and just what the scripture says, even if that means leaving some apparent holes unexplained.
I don't believe that is even an issue with the gap theory, because, as far as I can tell, there is no hole to be explained.
