I direct these questions to Christians, but any may answer. As a preface to your answer please tell me if you are or are not a Christian. FYI, I am a Christian.

1. Do you believe in evolution?

2. Do you believe in the "gap theory?"

3. Do you believe the 6 days of creation were 24 hour days or longer periods?

You may answer one, two, or all three of these questions if you desire. I am very interested in your answers and why you believe as you do.

Thank you,

Phil Debenham

I direct these questions to Christians, but any may answer. As a preface to your answer please tell me if you are or are not a Christian. FYI, I am a Christian.

1. Do you believe in evolution?

2. Do you believe in the "gap theory?"

3. Do you believe the 6 days of creation were 24 hour days or longer periods of time?

You may answer one, two, or all three of these questions if you desire. I am very interested in your answers and why you believe as you do.

Thank you,

nham


1. Only to the point that things within its species evolves slightly.

2. gap, sorry not up on that one, but I believe in a young earth idea not the old earth. If the earth is that old, which I don't believe it is, the only result was adam and eve was in the garden a lot longer than I would have believed

3. Yes, God created the time, day and night, so why not
Phil Debe

I am a child of God.

1. My answer to that would be about the same as chucks.

2. What is the gap theory?

3. I guess it could have been a whole day. I wasn't there.

1. Only to the point that things within its species evolves slightly.

2. gap, sorry not up on that one, but I believe in a young earth idea not the old earth. If the earth is that old, which I don't beleive it is, the only result was adam and eve was in the garden alot longer than I would have beleived

3. Yes, God created the time, day and night, so why not
Phil Debe

Fr. Chuck,

1. While changes within the kinds is often referred to as "evolution," but that is not truly evolution in the Darwinian molecules to man sense of the term. I agree that there are changes within a kind, but not changes from one kind to another.

2. The gap theory is a theological invention which states that there is a gap of an indeterminate period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The theory was developed to account for the so called geologic ages which set the earth as millions of years old.

3. There are many good theologians who believe that the days of creation stand for ages rather than normal days. Like you, I disagree with them.

Thanks for your reply,

Phil Debenham

PS: While you did not state it, I assume you to be a Christian.

I am a child of God.

1. My answer to that would be about the same as chucks.

2. What is the gap theory?

3. I guess it could have been a whole day. I wasnt there.

Crankiebabie,

I am afraid that I do not understand what you mean by "I am a child of God."

Please see my response to Fr. Chuck on questions 1 and 2. As to question 3, I know you weren't there. My question concerned your undersanding of the word "day" in Genesis 1. Perhaps you should read it before attempting an opinion?

Thank you,

Phil Debenham

I hope I don't sound rude, as that is not my intention at all, but why do you need people to tell you whether they are a Christian or not? Just curious, because the questions you're asking about the gap theory, 6 days of creation... are based on the Judeo-Christian Bible anyhow. Orthodox Jews and I imagine many Muslims believe similar things (since their scriptures are similar), but people of faiths that don't use this Bible would believe their own creation stories rather than those of Genesis. And of course atheists wouldn't believe in any kind of divine intervention at all. But maybe I'm missing the point? I don't know, just curious... hope you aren't offended.

Well I mean just that I am a child of God. But, if I must put a lable on it then you could call me a Christian. From what I can remember being told is the days back then were not 24 hr days but I think the days were shorter or were they longer? Im really not a bible reader for certain reasons but I guess I better get to studying because I don't know too much about genesis except for some things were created and god took a lunch break on the sabbath.

I dont know too much about genesis except for some things were created and god took a lunch break on the sabbath.

LOLL! That's great, haha! I was feeling kind of blah tonight and that's really funny!

Genesis actually covers a LOT of ground... creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the story of Noah's Ark, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Esau... and a bit of Joseph and his coat of many colors I think too. But then after Exodus (which has stuff on Moses and Egypt) it gets pretty dull... all those laws in Leviticus really put me to sleep.

Anyway thanks for making me laugh. :)

I hope I don't sound rude, as that is not my intention at all, but why do you need people to tell you whether they are a Christian or not? Just curious, because the questions you're asking about the gap theory, 6 days of creation... are based on the Judeo-Christian Bible anyhow. Orthodox Jews and I imagine many Muslims believe similar things (since their scriptures are similar), but people of faiths that don't use this Bible would believe their own creation stories rather than those of Genesis. And of course atheists wouldn't believe in any kind of divine intervention at all. But maybe I'm missing the point?? I don't know, just curious... hope you aren't offended.

This simple reason for telling me whether you are a Christian or not is so that I may understand where you are coming from prior to reading your answer. If you are not Christian (perhaps I should have included the Jewish faith as well) then I know right off the bat that you do not hold the book of Genesis as the word of God. It was not meant to judge another, but to understand ones bias and, therefore, better understand their answers. We all have biases. I am a Christian. Therefore you, knowing my faith, will know that I approach the subject of evolution from a particular bias. Consequently you will better understand my viewpoint.

Questions 2 and 3 concern the bible. Knowing how one views the bible is to better understand that persons answer.

As I said at the beginning of the question, this question is directed at Christians, primarily. Christians today have been "evolutionized." That is to say that their belief systems, by and large, have been influenced by the religion of science. I am interesed in understanding those who have been "evolutionized."

I pray that I have not offended you, I certainly did not mean to.

Phil Debenham

I direct these questions to Christians, but any may answer. As a preface to your answer please tell me if you are or are not a Christian. FYI, I am a Christian.

1. Do you believe in evolution?

2. Do you believe in the "gap theory?"

3. Do you believe the 6 days of creation were 24 hour days or longer periods of time?

You may answer one, two, or all three of these questions if you desire. I am very interested in your answers and why you believe as you do.

Thank you,

Phil Debenham


1 for me. I used to be a Christian but no longer.

1 for me. I used to be a Christian but no longer.

So what are you now?

I pray that I have not offended you, I certainly did not mean to.

Phil Debenham

Oh no that's cool... I'm not offended. I just didn't really understand why you were asking... I thought maybe you were doing a survey or something! ;) But I get it now.

To answer your question, it's a little complicated in my case. I was born to Jewish parents, but went into permanent foster care at age 4. So, I lived in a variety of different homes over the years, some Jewish, some Christian, some agnostic... some really conservative and some really liberal. Then I've tried out a few religions on my own as an adult, but never really stuck to anything. I'm 26 now, and I consider myself an agnostic, although I celebrate Jewish holidays.

I spent 2 years in an evangelical Christian home and was sent to the school that was run by my foster parent's church. We learned all about the creation story, etc, but even then (I was 9-11 at the time), I wondered if the story of how God created the world was really true or not. It didn't seem logical to me. I've always leaned towards the scientific explanations, and I really believe that the creation story is a just a story that was told in a way that would make sense to ancient / primitive people, so that they would know where they came from. Right now I don't know what I believe about God, but I do think there is some kind of Higher Being that created things, but I also believe in evolution at the same time... like, I think evolution really happened (is happening!) but that if there is a God, he/she had a hand in starting it. I don't have any trouble putting the two together like that. Actually I don't understand what's wrong with believing in both evolution and that God created the world. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, in my mind anyway...

I hadn't heard of the gap theory, but with my way of thinking, it's not really relevant, because I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve anyway. And of course I don't believe in 6 days of creation, either. Again, my belief is that it was just a way of explaining the world to ancient people.

I direct these questions to Christians, but any may answer. As a preface to your answer please tell me if you are or are not a Christian. FYI, I am a Christian.

1. Do you believe in evolution?

2. Do you believe in the "gap theory?"

3. Do you believe the 6 days of creation were 24 hour days or longer periods of time?

You may answer one, two, or all three of these questions if you desire. I am very interested in your answers and why you believe as you do.

Thank you,

Phil Debenham

I, also am Christian.

1. I believe in some of evolution - that life forms can and do adapt to their environment over time.

2 & 3. I am confident that Genesis is not all to be taken literally, but am also not confident that we can ever know what is and what is not literal.

For me, it's 95% surety that the 6 days of creation were not 24 hour periods.

I, also am Christian.

1. I believe in some of evolution - that life forms can and do adapt to their environment over time.

2 & 3. I am confident that Genesis is not all to be taken literally, but am also not confident that we can ever know what is and what is not literal.

For me, it's 95% surety that the 6 days of creation were not 24 hour periods.

Rickj,

Thank you for your reply. I would very much like to discuss this with you. I will tell you up front that I disagree with you nearly completely on your answer. Please do not take that to mean I am hostile toward you, I am not. However, I do desire to understand your point of view, and in the process of that I shall share mine and the reasons for it.

Your statement on question #1 I believe I agree with. If it means that there are changes within a kind, but not changes from one kind to another. That is, there is natural selection within kinds. I do not, however, believe in Dawinian or neo-Darwinian "molecules to man" evolution. Do you agree with that?

Clearly we disagree in our answers to questions 2 and 3. Would you please explain a little why you believe that Genesis is not to be taken literally? And also why you think the 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 should not be taken literally?

I look forward to your response,

Phil Debenham

I never take offense to one disagreeing with me :D



Your statement on question #1 I believe I agree with. If it means that there are changes within a kind, but not changes from one kind to another. That is, there is natural selection within kinds. I do not, however, believe in Dawinian or neo-Darwinian "molecules to man" evolution. Do you agree with that?

You and I are in full agreement there.


rickj,
Would you please expalin a little why you believe that Genesis is not to be taken literally? And also why you think the 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 should not be taken literally?

It's not that I believe Genesis "is not to be taken literally", it's just that I recognize that there are many different types of writings in the Bible: Poetry, Parable, History, Genealogy, Illustrations, Alliterations, Similie, Metaphor, etc... so recognize that it is not every author's attempt, in every single section, to give a historic factual account of something.

I am firmly convinced that God could have created the Universe in six 24-hour periods... but if I take that literally, then I should also be able to take literally the timeline from Creation to Noah, and the genealogy from Noah to Christ... and therefore put creation at only about 6000 years old.

I do believe that the laws of nature that we observe (which, yes, were "set up" by God) show that the Universe is much, much older than this.

... so if that is true, then there must be something about the creation story - or the timeline - that must not be literal.

That, really, would be the "short version" of my answer.

Am I making sense?

Let me add some Scriptural references.

1. Christ's words
"that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4)

2. light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16),

3. Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

No, these things do not address the issue specifically, but show how difficult things would be if we took every jot and tittle literally...

Rickj, your answers are right on, and you explain them so well! This is basically what I believe too, although I'm not sure what I think about God at this point.

What do you mean "what I think about God?"

Do you mean whether there is a God or not?

I think it's much easier to believe that the Universe was created than
1. It all sprang up out of nothing, or that somehow
2. It has always been.

Anything with design has a designer.

So, in short, I think that it requires more faith to be an Atheist than it does to be a Theist.

No, I think there's a God, I'm not sure Who or What... if that makes any sense. I'm sort in a questioning stage. And I would consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. Atheists are SURE there is no God and I could never be sure of that! I agree with you totally on that point.

I guess it's more a question of what RELIGION I should belong to, rather than whether I believe in God. Actually if I was going to be Christian though, I would likely be Catholic because of the time I spent in a Catholic boarding school, which was very good for me. I admired the nuns and I was treated well. I liked the mass and the various customs, and it gives me a feeling of "nostagia" whenever I go to an RC Church (which is not often though! ). But I wouldn't feel right at this point, actually becoming a Catholic, just based on my "nice" feelings. I want to have faith, and I'm not sure it's there.

I'm sure a lot of my confusion has to do with the way I was raised... nothing was permanent for me. But hopefully I will sort it out eventually!

Let me, then, have you consider these this:

The Apostles and early Christians who risked horrible, horrible deaths to proclaim what Christ did, taught and said He was were either

1. delusional,
2. liars, or
3. telling folks about accurate events.

I believe that a logical and historical look at each of these options shows the near impossibility of the first two.

Yes I know that argument Rick and it's a good one, but I can't help thinking that there could be a number 4... that they lived a long time ago, in the days before science and technology, and believed in the supernatural / miracles a lot easier than people do now, because their world was so limited. That doesn't make them crazy or liars, but more naïve, if that's the right word? Anyway thanks for responding so quickly to my post!

I would call your option #4 the same as delusional.

I do not believe that people, in general, were more gullable - or less intellegent - then, than they are now.

Okay a question. Gods son name is Jesus but I never hear God called anything but God. What is his actual name or is that another mystery Ill have to investigate? Does it say in the bible?

I would call your option #4 the same as delusional.

I do not believe that people, in general, were more gullable - or less intellegent - then, than they are now.

Well I don't think they were more gullible or less intelligent, either... but I do think their world was a lot smaller than ours. I mean, for example, people in a primitive society might think TV was witchcraft, or if they saw an airplane in the sky they might think it was giant flying bird or a sign from God. It's not that they're stupid, they've just had a different experience than us. On the flip side of things, maybe that was good for them because they had a lot less doubt and temptation.

Okay a question. Gods son name is Jesus but I never hear God called anything but God. What is his actual name or is that another mystery Ill have to investigate? Does it say in the bible?

There are many "names" for God.

Here are two interesting articles:

http://www.ldolphin.org/Names.html

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=220

Okay a question. Gods son name is Jesus but I never hear God called anything but God. What is his actual name or is that another mystery Ill have to investigate? Does it say in the bible?

Well God apparently has a real name... YHVH... yud hey vov hey in Hebrew (there are no vowels)... but I was taught as a Jew that you're not to say it out loud. Christians do say it out loud, though... or an interpretation of it at least, adding vowels to make it "Yahweh". He's also called Jehovah, and some other things too that I can't recall right now. Hopefully Rick can help you, if he's not sick of this thread right now that is! ;)

Oops he already answered... thanks Rick. I will check out the links too.

Cool sites. I feel for that dude. That is a lot of names. Imagine when he has to sign his name to stuff.

cool sites. I feel for that dude. That is a lot of names. Imagine when he has to sign his name to stuff.

LMAO!! You should be a commedian, you always say such good funny things! :)

I am a Christian

1) I do not believe in the Darwinian evolution

2) I haven't heard any logical reason to believe the gap theory.

3)I haven't heard any other logical reason to believe in anything but the 6 days being a 24 hour period.


The reason for #2 and #3 being "heard" is because, to be honest, I don't go through the millions and millions of research it requires to figure all this out in the hebrew and poosibly in the greek. I do, like many others, have to rely on pastors and others who do this research to help me sift out all the bull and take the things that are actual truth.

so what are you now?

I am not religious at all although I believe in God's existence as the creator of universe.

1 for me. I used to be a Christian but no longer.
Tell me why?

Let me add some Scriptural references.

1. Christ's words
"that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4)

2. light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16),

3. Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

No, these things do not address the issue specifically, but show how difficult things would be if we took every jot and tittle literally...

1. You cannot use the greek word for "day" to interpret the hebrew word for "day." Also, the last part of the verse cancels out the first part of the verse if you are trying to apply it to Genesis 1. This verse in no way applies.

2. The sun is not needed for light. God spoke and there was light. God did not need the sun.

3. The Hebrew word for day can mean a longer period (but it can't mean millions of years), but it can also mean "day." In fact that is it's main meaning. After Genesis 1 every time the word day is used with the words "morning and evening" it means a 24 hour day. Every time it is used with either "moring" or "evening" it means a 24 hour day. Every time it is used with a number it means a 24 hour day. Now look back to Genesis 1. What do we see? Morning, evening, number, day; morning, evening, number, day; morning, evening, number, day... I don't think God could have mad it much clearer.

4. Why do you doubt that God means exactly what He says in Genesis 1? Is it because "science" has "proved" the cosmos is billions of years old?

Tell me why?

Growing up, I ended up going to a Christian school and was told/taught to be one. As I grew older and studied various aspects of Christianity in earnest, I began to doubt. Then, like many others have seen before me, I saw hypocritical side of Church and churchgoers. In almost every church I went to, there have been some form of power struggle over the control of church or money or both. I've seen ministers ending up abusing children (a 45 year old married minister running away with 14 year old girl, etc). I've seen churches which became more of a social function organization than a place of worship - a money making factory rather than a place to gather and worship. It really turned me off and finally pushed me over to the other side.

I guess I didn't have strong faith to start with before things pushed me over.

Growing up, I ended up going to a Christian school and was told/taught to be one. As I grew older and studied various aspects of Christianity in earnest, I began to doubt. Then, like many others have seen before me, I saw hypocritical side of Church and churchgoers. In almost every church I went to, there have been some form of power struggle over the control of church or money or both. I've seen ministers ending up abusing children (a 45 year old married minister running away with 14 year old girl, etc). I've seen churches which became more of a social function organization than a place of worship - a money making factory rather than a place to gather and worship. It really turned me off and finally pushed me over to the other side.
I guess I didn't have strong faith to start with before things pushed me over.

I know what you mean, rkim... as an adult I was in a born-again Christian church for 2 years, but then our pastor was accused of stealing money from the church and being inappropriate with young girls. The charges were never proven, but the church split, with half of the people going with the pastor and the other half starting another church. I had friends on both sides of the fight, but people with very spiteful and "un-Christian" with each other after the split, and I was expected to choose a side. Some "friends" stopped speaking to me because I went to the side of the church that they disapproved. Finally I just couldn't stand all the fighting and hatred so I just left.

This kind of thing happens in all religions, and with organizations in general, but it sure turns you off everything! I have no desire to go anywhere at this point.

I never take offense to one disagreeing with me :D


You and I are in full agreement there.


It's not that I believe Genesis "is not to be taken literally", it's just that I recognize that there are many different types of writings in the Bible: Poetry, Parable, History, Genealogy, Illustrations, Alliterations, Similie, Metaphor, etc... so recognize that it is not every author's attempt, in every single section, to give a historic factual account of something.

I am firmly convinced that God could have created the Universe in six 24-hour periods...but if I take that literally, then I should also be able to take literally the timeline from Creation to Noah, and the genealogy from Noah to Christ...and therefore put creation at only about 6000 years old.

I do believe that the laws of nature that we observe (which, yes, were "set up" by God) show that the Universe is much, much older than this.

...so if that is true, then there must be something about the creation story - or the timeline - that must not be literal.

That, really, would be the "short version" of my answer.

Am I making sense?
Genesis is a history book. That is the way it is quoted numerous times, even by Jesus Himself, in the New Testament. It should be understood as Jesus understood it, don't you think?

6000 to about 1000 years old (accounting for genealogical gaps). What makes you think it is older than that?

What "laws of nature" show that the universe is much, much older than this? In truth, there are none.

Growing up, I ended up going to a Christian school and was told/taught to be one. As I grew older and studied various aspects of Christianity in earnest, I began to doubt. Then, like many others have seen before me, I saw hypocritical side of Church and churchgoers. In almost every church I went to, there have been some form of power struggle over the control of church or money or both. I've seen ministers ending up abusing children (a 45 year old married minister running away with 14 year old girl, etc). I've seen churches which became more of a social function organization than a place of worship - a money making factory rather than a place to gather and worship. It really turned me off and finally pushed me over to the other side.

I guess I didn't have strong faith to start with before things pushed me over.
I see. You are one of the walking wounded.

You went to a Christian school, but that does not make you a Christian.
You went to church, but that does not make you a Christian.
You saw a lot of garbage from those who, like you, claimed to be Christian, but claiming to be Christian does not make you (or them) a Christian.

Christianity is not between you and the church, school, or ministers. Christianity is a relationship between you and God through Jesus Christ. You have tried "churchianity." Perhaps it's time to give God a try?

In Love,

Phil Debenham

I know what you mean, rkim... as an adult I was in a born-again Christian church for 2 years, but then our pastor was accused of stealing money from the church and being inappropriate with young girls. The charges were never proven, but the church split, with half of the people going with the pastor and the other half starting another church. I had friends on both sides of the fight, but people with very spiteful and "un-Christian" with each other after the split, and I was expected to choose a side. Some "friends" stopped speaking to me because I went to the side of the church that they disapproved. Finally I just couldn't stand all the fighting and hatred so I just left.

This kind of thing happens in all religions, and with organizations in general, but it sure turns you off everything! I have no desire to go anywhere at this point.

Yeah, it happens too often. Perhaps, we went to a same church. :D

Christianity is a relationship between you and God through Jesus Christ.

I agree. Now if only Churchgoers believe that, we won't have too much hypocrisy associated with Christianity. (I didn't mean to sound bitter - I am not. Pardon my wording in advance.)

:cool:
Genesis is a history book. That is the way it is quoted numerous times, even by Jesus Himself, in the New Testament. It should be understood as Jesus understood it, don't you think?

6000 to about 1000 years old (accounting for geneological gaps). What makes you think it is older than that?

What "laws of nature" show that the universe is much, much older than this? In truth, there are none.
How do you account for the millions of fossils that have been found through out the world and the human skulls of extinct people,the cave drawings? These are real and they tell a story spanning millions of years.Everything I've seen points to Good Orderly Direction to get us to the point we are now.As humans we can believe anything we want,but to ignore that which is front of us just because we can't explain it, is to miss valuable information to make an informed opinion.God could have just as easily design this whole thing through methods only He could know and our human minds cannot even grasp the wonders of what has been done.I don't know how it was done but I believe He done it!?

:cool:
How do you account for the millions of fossils that have been found thru out the world and the human skulls of extinct people,the cave drawings? These are real and they tell a story spanning millions of years.Everything I've seen points to Good Orderly Direction to get us to the point we are now.As humans we can believe anything we want,but to ignore that which is front of us just because we can't explain it, is to miss valuable information to make an informed opinion.God could have just as easily design this whole thing thru methods only He could know and our human minds cannot even grasp the wonders of what has been done.I don't know how it was done but I believe He done it!!??!
Fossils are deposited in layers throughout the world. Paleontologist and Geologists will tell you that these are proof that the earth is billions of years old. It is not proof. Where the Evolutionist and the Creationist will agree is with the facts. There are fossils and human skulls of dead (not extinct) people, and cave drawings. How these facts came to be back before we were around is where we disagree. The evolutionist reads these facts through evolution lensed glasses. They assume evolution to be a fact and therefore bring their bias to the facts. The creationist does the same thing with creation lensed glasses. However, the creationist model fits the facts and the evolution model does not. We have millions of dead things buried in layers deposited by water all over the earth. If there were a global flood as we find in Genesis, what would you expect to find? Answer: Millions of dead things buried in layers deposited by water all over the earth. Now you have stated that these things tell a story spanning millions of years. How do you know that? Where did you come up with "millions of years?"

Yes, "God could have just as easily design this whole thing thru methods only He could know and our human minds cannot even grasp the wonders of what has been done," but He didn't. He has told us how He did it in Genesis and everything in Genesis fits the facts we observe in the world. How is it that you can believe that God created but could not easily communicate to us how that was done?

I really think God knows how dumb us humans are and tells us only what our little minds can grasp.Do you tell a five year old what you were doing to his mommy last night?HE understans wrestling with her, not procreating!Do you not believe in carbon14 testing,How come nobody has seen any of those dinosaur fossils walking around in the flesh?Our limited perceptions only allow us a very narrow view of the reality of the world we live in.Question-If Adam and Eve where first and they had kids who did their kids mate with to produce mankind?You can probably tell I don't hold the bible or any other book to be of any devine origin.:cool:

What about dinosaur fossils?

Oops you already said that talaniman, sorry! :p

Also, I'm interested in what creationists think about DNA? Like for example, how do you explain that chimpanzees and humans share over 97% of the same DNA, if we don't have a common ancestor?

Science and Bible just don't mix and I didn't have strong faith to explain away scientific facts vs what Bible says. But that didn't stop me from liking the song below in late 1970s. :)

By Bob Dylan...

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal that liked to growl,
Big furry paws and he liked to howl,
Great big furry back and furry hair.
"ah, think i'll call it a bear."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal up on a hill
Chewing up so much grass until she was filled.
He saw milk comin' out but he didn't know how.
"ah, think i'll call it a cow."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal that liked to snort,
Horns on his head and they weren't too short.
It looked like there wasn't nothing that he couldn't pull.
"ah, think i'll call it a bull."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal leavin' a muddy trail,
Real dirty face and a curly tail.
He wasn't too small and he wasn't too big.
"ah, think i'll call it a pig."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

Next animal that he did meet
Had wool on his back and hooves on his feet,
Eating grass on a mountainside so steep.
"ah, think i'll call it a sheep."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal as smooth as glass
Slithering his way through the grass.
Saw him disappear by a tree near a lake.. .

That was from Slow Train Coming, wasn't it?

Yes, for a time, Bob Dylan had an interest in telling the world about his newfound Christian faith... but I wonder; is he is still an adherant?

I really think God knows how dumb us humans are and tells us only what our little minds can grasp.Do you tell a five year old what you were doing to his mommy last night?HE understans wrestling with her, not procreating!Do you not believe in carbon14 testing,How come nobody has seen any of those dinosaur fossils walking around in the flesh?Our limited perceptions only allow us a very narrow view of the reality of the world we live in.Question-If Adam and Eve where first and they had kids who did their kids mate with to produce mankind?You can probably tell I don't hold the bible or any other book to be of any devine origin.:cool:
The same God who made our minds and created language has used plain language to explain what He has done. He did so in simple to understand language so that even a child could understand it. That is what one might expect of a loving God.

Do I believe in carbon 14 testing? No, not really. There are actually hundreds of methods used for dating materials. Carbon dating is only one of them and all of them are based on presuppositions. Many of the methods produce dates which coincide with the biblical account. Carbon 14 is a dating system that cannot date anything to billions of years. It is not the method that can do that. Potassium Argon is a method for dating to millions of years, but, did you know that if a volcano errupts in Hiawaii and you test the lava using Potassium Argon Dating the lava would test billions of years old even though it was only a day old?

No one today has seen large dinosaurs because they are extinct. In the time of Job people did see them and the book of Job mentions two of them.

Yes, Adam and Eve had many children (Gen. 5:4), and yes they married each other and continued to produce. God did not tell man that he could not marry a close relative until after the flood.

The bible is the Word of God and that is why it fits the facts we see around us while the molecules to man evolutionary theory does not.

What would you believe in if there was no bible?Do you believe in science?:cool:After the flood who did Noahs children mate with? :rolleyes: Who did their children mate with?:cool:

Potassium Argon is a method for dating to millions of years, but, did you know that if a volcano errupts in Hiawaii and you test the lava using Potassium Argon Dating the lava would test billions of years old even though it was only a day old? Actually that makes a lot of sense since lava is nothing but melted rock that has moved form below the earth to above the mantle. Nothing is a day old because nothing was created, simply moved from point A to point B.

But why is it that you do not 'believe' in carbon14 dating? It really isn't a matter of belief since you could replicate the scientific experiments that show its properties... over and over again.

That was from Slow Train Coming, wasn't it?

Yes, for a time, Bob Dylan had an interest in telling the world about his newfound Christian faith...but I wonder; is he is still an adherant?

I think he went back to being Jewish...

Actually that makes a lot of sense since lava is nothing but melted rock that has moved form below the earth to above the mantle. Nothing is a day old because nothing was created, simply moved from point A to point B.


Yes exactly... rocks, water, any elements you can think of... are as old as the earth, in no matter what form / state they appear. Fossils aren't rocks though. They're remains... and so when you use cadmium dating (or carbon) you are comparing the age of the fossil remains to the age of the rocks. And as NeedKarma says, it's not a matter of belief. It's been scientifically proven over and over again.

Again, I go back to my point of, why does it matter? Why can't people just believe in God and evolution at the same time? Like that evolution was engineered by God? No one is answering my question about that...

That was from Slow Train Coming, wasn't it?

Yes, it was.

"Slow Train Coming" is an album by Bob Dylan? I should try to look for it and listen to it as Bob Dylan was my mother's favorite singer. I don't think I've ever heard it!

Yes. It was music written with a Christian message.

Music-wise, I thought it only fair to middlin, but the message was great.

Who is bob dylan?

Oh my, you make me feel old! :p

Bob Dylan was one of the major music movers and shakers of the 60s.

Why can't people just believe in God and evolution at the same time? Like that evolution was engineered by God?

That would contradict Bible and it would be too much for Christians to accept?

What Christians would need is a new Bible (Newer Testement) which can explain the relationship between science and their religion in modern way. If bunch of faithfuls can get together 1700 years ago and draft a Bible (doing quite a bit of editing), why not come up with another book to complement the Bible? As is, it is hard to accept a book written a few thousand years ago FOR the people who lived then to make sense for many of us now. Anyway, my 2 cents and a food for thought.

Oh my, you make me feel old! :p

You and me both. :o

For others, Bob Dylan had bunch of "Christian Rock" albums at the time. IMO, Slow Train is the best one and actually has a song that climbed to #1 or #2 on the pop chart. The song was "Gotta serve somebody." The entire album is beautifully recorded. Even if you are not a Christian, it's worth a listen.

Is he in anyway related to matt dylan? You guys shouldn't feel old. You should feel lucky that you lived in such an awesome era.

My whole point is that the God I understand created all there is using His methods that I know nothing about, I just believe.As I have seen enough evidence to support the theory that the Earth is millions of years old and has supported many different types of life,and this does not contradict any of my beliefs.God and evolution is not a conflict as it makes perfect sense both from a religious stand point and a scientific one.What doesn't make sense is the Genesis story of Adam and Eve or the notion that Noah repopulated the earth after the great flood, but my mind is open to new information or facts:cool:

I believe in God and evolution at the same time... to a point, but not all of it (formal Evolution).

Is he in anyway related to matt dylan?

I don't think so (which means I am right until someone comes up with a definitive proof that I was wrong. ;) ).

BTW, Bob Dylan's real last name is Zimmermen.

I don't think so (which means I am right until someone comes up with a definitive proof that I was wrong. ;) ).

BTW, Bob Dylan's real last name is Zimmermen.
Bob Dylan's given name was indeed Robert Zimmerman. He came to the Lord after counseling with 2 of the then Valley Vineyard Christian Fellowship pastors (one of whom is a very close friend of mine.) I have personally not seen Bob since those Vineyard days, but Chuck Girard says that he believes Bob's faith is still real and fully expects to see him in heaven.

Actually that makes a lot of sense since lava is nothing but melted rock that has moved form below the earth to above the mantle. Nothing is a day old because nothing was created, simply moved from point A to point B.

But why is it that you do not 'believe' in carbon14 dating? It really isn't a matter of belief since you could replicate the scientific experiments that show its properties... over and over again.

Lava is the formation of new rock, but it does not date as new rock using Potassium Argon dating. It date incorrectly.

Carbon Dating, like all dating systems, is based on presuppositions which may or may not be correct. As I have said earlier, there are literally hundreds of dating methods used by science, and they don't always agree. That alone poses a problem. Did you know that 90% of the dates given by all of these methods produce dates younger than evolution requires? You are asking me to accept the 10% that support the evolutionist theory of millions of years and ignore the 90% that do not. You accept it because you have been taught to accept it, not because it is true. When Carbon Dating was introduced and old things were dated a great furor ensued and a Pulitzer Prize awarded. However, when it was discovered that the dating system was in error, the system was corrected and things redated by the corrected method. Suddenly the dates came back much younger and fit within the creation model. No furor ensued. Instead new methods began to be used. Again, Carbon Dating is not the method that is used to dated things old enough to support evolution, so whether I believe in the total accuracy of the method or not is moot to our discussion.

Science and Bible just don't mix and I didn't have strong faith to explain away scientific facts vs what Bible says. But that didn't stop me from liking the song below in late 1970s. :)

By Bob Dylan ...

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal that liked to growl,
Big furry paws and he liked to howl,
Great big furry back and furry hair.
"ah, think i'll call it a bear."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal up on a hill
Chewing up so much grass until she was filled.
He saw milk comin' out but he didn't know how.
"ah, think i'll call it a cow."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal that liked to snort,
Horns on his head and they weren't too short.
It looked like there wasn't nothin' that he couldn't pull.
"ah, think i'll call it a bull."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal leavin' a muddy trail,
Real dirty face and a curly tail.
He wasn't too small and he wasn't too big.
"ah, think i'll call it a pig."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

Next animal that he did meet
Had wool on his back and hooves on his feet,
Eating grass on a mountainside so steep.
"ah, think i'll call it a sheep."

Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, in the beginning.
Man gave names to all the animals
In the beginning, long time ago.

He saw an animal as smooth as glass
Slithering his way through the grass.
Saw him disappear by a tree near a lake . . .

Show me one scientific fact that contridicts the bible.

Chuck Girard says that he believes Bob's faith is still real and fully expects to see him in heaven.

Isn't it incredibly arrogant for someone to say that they know whether someone is going to heaven? It's a positive thought in this case, but it would be just as easy for Chuck Girard to say he thought Bob Dylan was going to hell. Like, I'm not God and therefore I can't know what's in a person's heart or judge whether they're "saved".

What would you believe in if there was no bible?Do you believe in science?:cool:After the flood who did Noahs children mate with? :rolleyes: Who did their children mate with?:cool:
There is a bible so the question is moot.

I do believe in science. Science is the study of what we see. Creationist believe in natural selection. We believe in mutation. We believe because it is what we see. Where Evolutionist and Creationist part isn't with science, it is with understanding how the things we see came to be when we weren't there to study them! That is not science. Actually both evolution and creationism contain parts of science and religion. Again, we agree on what we observe... and that is science.

After the flood Ham, Shem, and Nepheth's children married and had children. Earlier I said that close relation marriage was not prohibited until after the flood. I misspoke. It was actually prohibited at the time of Moses.

Isn't it incredibly arrogant for someone to say that they know whether or not someone is going to heaven? It's a positive thought in this case, but it would be just as easy for Chuck Girard to say he thought Bob Dylan was going to hell. Like, I'm not God and therefore I can't know what's in a person's heart or judge whether or not they're "saved".
No, it's not arrogant. The bible says "you shall know them by their fruits." Based upon that, Chuck has formed an opinion.

But the Bible also says "judge not, lest ye be judged". Anyway I guess it's pointless to argue about it... I think it's wrong to put that kind of judgement on a person, but lots of evangelical Christians seem to think it's perfectly fine.

But the Bible also says "judge not, lest ye be judged". Anyways I guess it's pointless to argue about it... I think it's wrong to put that kind of judgement on a person, but lots of evangelical Christians seem to think it's perfectly fine.
There is no judgement involved.

Phil, may I ask what your original intent was for this thread? I am not trying to judge or criticize but just trying to get a sense ofthis thread. There are people who might have an honest question about faith in God but are afraid to post because this seemed to have turned into a debate as to whether God can be proved or not. God can be proved by ones who either already believe or who are ready to believe. The bible and God is foolishness to those who do not believe (that is a paraphrase right from the bible). Before anyone jumps on that it means exactly what is going on here in this thread is that the ones who don't accept think the biblle is foolishness.

If your main intent was to debate these matters then I apologize for sticking my nose in this. I would like to have one christian thread started that doesn't get bombarded with debate. Thank you. Carry on as you were. :D

Isn't it incredibly arrogant for someone to say that they know whether or not someone is going to heaven? It's a positive thought in this case, but it would be just as easy for Chuck Girard to say he thought Bob Dylan was going to hell. Like, I'm not God and therefore I can't know what's in a person's heart or judge whether or not they're "saved".


Sometimes we do get a sense of how someone is by their fruits as Phil said. Sometimes Christians do judge and it is not right, we are only human. I wouldn't necessarily tell someone they are going to hell because as you said, we are not God and don't know their hearts. I don't think it is necessarily wrong to state whether you think someone is going to Heaven because you are basing it on their actions. Anyway, like you said, it doesn't matter. I wanted to put my 2 cents in for what it is worth.

Jduke, your response about the judgement thing makes sense to me... and yeah I don't think Christians are judgemental in general, but I do worry when I hear someone (of any faith) saying they know the fate of another. I mean that could get dangerous... in some religious sects it's considered okay to kill someone who you think is not of the right faith! Even if you think a person is doomed to hell or whatever, you can still be kind to them and try to help them, instead of saying "you're going to hell" or "you're full of demons" or something.

And yeah I agree this thread has a weird vibe to it. I'm not sure what the purpose is either. That's why I asked at the beginning why you were supposed to say if you were a Christian or not. I was wondering that if I admitted that I wasn't, would I get judged for that... and I do kind of feel judged here.

Anyway as always I'm just sincerely searching, not trying to cause trouble or anything. I really appreciated your explanation. Thanks.

but I do worry when I hear someone (of any faith) saying they know the fate of another. I mean that could get dangerous... in some religious sects it's considered okay to kill someone who you think is not of the right faith! Even if you think a person is doomed to hell or whatever, you can still be kind to them and try to help them, instead of saying "you're going to hell" or "you're full of demons" or something.


I am careful of this myself, however, if I know the character of the person saying this to another, I could better discern as to whether he might be given a direct revalation from God (Yes this does happen and nothing to be scared of). However, the approach to this person would be the most critical point as to whether that person understands what the man of faith is saying.


And yeah I agree this thread has a weird vibe to it. I'm not sure what the purpose is either. That's why I asked at the beginning why you were supposed to say if you were a Christian or not. I was wondering that if I admitted that I wasn't, would I get judged for that... and I do kind of feel judged here.

No need ot wierded out by Phil's question, I would have done the same thing. My intent was not to question why Phil had asked whether you are a Christian or not. I agree with why he asked and I am glad (and I am sure he is also) you made him clarify that. I am concerned about all the other garbage overwhelming the actual intent of the thread. I don't mind threads being sidetracked but every thread on religion ends up with the same them over and over about the creation vs. evolution.

BTW, if you have honest questions about this whole thing, you can always pm me. I am usually on m-f anywhere from 3-10:30. I try to answer questions w/o judging.

You accept it because you have been taught to accept it, not because it is true.
Couldn't one say the same of the bible?

I am concerned about all the other garbage overwhelming the actual intent of the thread. I don't mind threads being sidetracked but every thread on religion ends up with the same them over and over about the creation vs. evolution.

Yeah I was going to say that too, but I was scared to haha. So thanks for saying it for me. You're right, I've not read any revelations about creation / evolution in this thread, on either side of the argument... more just "I'm right", "No I'm right", "NO I AM!!!", etc. Everything is just being rehashed. And I really would like to hear something new and intelligent. That would make this thread really worthwhile.



BTW, if you have honest questions about this whole thing, you can always pm me. I am usually on m-f anywhere from 3-10:30. I try to answer questions w/o judging.

Thanks a lot, maybe I will sometime! :)

Couldn't one say the same of the bible?

Not totally. If one doesn't go to a Sunday school class or anything like that. Everyone has to go to school so this theory is beat into every kids mind and they have no way of knowing if it si the truth or not unless they ask a parent -- who has had it beat into their minds. They even have to teach it in private schools but differenced is there, the teacher can give the biblical view also.

Not totally. If one doesn't go to a Sunday school class or anything like that. Everyone has to go to school so this theory is beat into every kids mind and they have no way of knowing if it si the truth or not unless they ask a parent -- who has had it beat into their minds. They even have to teach it in private schools but differenced is there, the teacher can give the biblical view also.You don't have catholic schools where you are? Anyway the argument goes both ways except that if little Johnny wasn't sure about the results of carbon dating he could study it and conduct experiments that can be reproduced. The bible has to be taken on faith.

I would like to say first that anything I say is not a personally attack on you (if it seems like an attack that is), because I respect you and all the posters on this thread.

Yes, they have catholic schools in my area. Matter of fact, I grew up going to one. That is not where my faith originated. I don't consider myself a catholic. I believe in God because it made sense to me. Why, I don't know, I cannot PROVE this. I tell people about my faith, if it makes sense to them they may accept it. If it doesn't, I go on my merry way. I am not brainwashed into thinking this way, no one beat me over the head with it, my spirit jumped alive when it was presented to me. True Christinity is hard to explain sometimes in our human minds. This is why we hve the bible to explain these things.

I understand your point about being able to prove carbon dating. As I said in my previous post, faith is without seeing. For those who don't need to see proof this faith is for them. For those who need proof, may never believe this.

Jesus said to Thomas "you believe with seeing, blessed are those who believe without seeing".



Disclaimer: views expressed in my post may or may not expressed those that believe the same things as I do

Fair enough, I respect the way you express yourself.
Have a great day!

I am a Christian.

1. I believe in evolution to a point. I do not believe that people came from monkeys that were previously tadpoles, however I do believe that over time our bodies do adapt to it's surronding and the mind become adjusted to the society in which one is ontinuously surrounded by. In that sense, I do believe in evolution.

2. The Gap Theory... not quite sure I know exactly what that is.

3. As far as the time of creation... Time is a man made concept that is used to keep things in a certain order. So as far as creation being completed in a set 24 hour period... I do think it is possible however, but then again it could very well have taken more or even less time then that.

I think you will understand what I am just by my username, also by the way I answer this question.

First - God created all things great and small.

Second - Never heard of the gap theory, although it must just be a theory.

Third - Gods time and our time, are definatley different and many try to explain the difference, as the 1 day is like 1,000 for God. For all we know God exists outside of time.

What do you think?

I think you will understand what I am just by my username, also by the way I answer this question.

First - God created all things great and small.

Second - Never heard of the gap theory, although it must just be a theory.

Third - Gods time and our time, are definatley different and many try to explain the difference, as the 1 day is like 1,000 for God. For all we know God exists outside of time.

What do you think?
I will comment on number 3. God does indeed exist outside of time, but He is the One who created time! "A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" is a statement that God exists outside of time and is not in subjection to it. That, however, says absolutely nothing about the days in Genesis 1. Do you understand the days in Genesis 1 as literal days or not, and why?

Couldn't one say the same of the bible?
Yes, you could say the same thing, and in my childhood that would have been true. However, I have done quite a little study of the bible and now base that opinion on more that just pure faith (although that pure faith remains). The bible is the only source which fits all the facts.

I am a Christian.

1. I believe in evolution to a point. I do not believe that people came from monkeys that were previously tadpoles, however I do believe that over time our bodies do adapt to it's surronding and the mind become adjusted to the society in which one is ontinuously surronded by. In that sense, I do believe in evolution.

2. The Gap Theory......not quite sure I know exactly what that is.

3. As far as the time period of creation........Time is a man made concept that is used to keep things in a certain order. So as far as creation being completed in a set 24 hour period...........I do think it is possible however, but then again it could very well have taken more or even less time then that.
Do you accept the bible as the word of God?

You said time is a man made concept. I, along with the bible, disagree. Time is a creation of God.

Phil, may I ask what your original intent was for this thread? I am not trying to judge or criticize but just trying to get a sense ofthis thread. There are people who might have an honest question about faith in God but are afraid to post because this seemed to have turned into a debate as to whether God can be proved or not. God can be proved by ones who either already believe or who are ready to believe. The bible and God is foolishness to those who do not believe (that is a paraphrase right from the bible). Before anyone jumps on that it means exactly what is going on here in this thread is that the ones who don't accept think the biblle is foolishness.

If your main intent was to debate these matters then I apologize for sticking my nose in this. I would like to have one christian thread started that doesn't get bombarded with debate. Thank you. Carry on as you were. :D
Jduke,

Christianity is based on the biblical account. Most Christians don't realize, in my humble opinion, that the whole of the bible rests on the foundation of Genesis 1-11. Humanism, which has permeated our culture (indeed, it has become our culture), has attacked Christianity at its foundation. Humanists (who are Evolutionists) understand that if people don't believe in the foundation then the superstructure collapses as well. This is what has happened in our churches today. So, yes, the purpose of this thread is to debate and understand how it is that Christians (I emphasize "Christians") can mythologize Genesis 1-11 and not truly realize why they have done it and what it means to the rest of the scripture. If, simply put, the history of Genesis 1-11 is not true, nothing else in the bible can be trusted. This is a BIG issue, jduke, and most of the modern church is blind to it. I stand, jduke, for the authority of Scripture.

Phil, I agree with you wholeheartedly, so far, on everything you say. I also skimmed quickly at your website and it seems credible and uplifting. I was not trying to sow discourse with you or disagree with you. I wanted to clarify this for the sake of others that may have questions but don't necessarily want to debate science against creation.


Most Christians don't realize, in my humble opinion, that the whole of the bible rests on the foundation of Genesis 1-11. Humanism, which has permeated our culture (indeed, it has become our culture), has attacked Christianity at its foundation.

I think you are right. I didn't totally realize that either. However, I don't think the gap theory is credible and I don't see why God could not have made the earth in 6 - 24 hour day period. Like I said before, I think since we starte school these theories were beat into our minds with no chance of thinking anything differently. Unfortunately, we don't have the equipment or the expertise to studies these theorie ourselves and have to rely on other "expert" (using term loosely) to guide us.


I will continue to watch the thread and see if I can add anything but other than that I will leave it up to you guys to talk. Thanks for replying and clarifying this.

Phil, I agree with you wholeheartedly, so far, on everything you say. I also skimmed quickly at your website and it seems credible and uplifting. I was not trying to sow discourse with you or disagree with you. I wanted to clarify this for the sake of others that may have questions but don't necessarily want to debate science against creation.



I think you are right. I didn't totally realize that either. However, I don't think the gap theory is credible and I don't see why God could not have made the earth in 6 - 24 hour day period. Like I said before, I think since we starte school these theories were beat into our minds with no chance of thinking anything differently. Unfortunately, we don't have the equipment or the expertise to studies these theorie ourselves and have to rely on other "expert" (using term loosely) to guide us.


I will continue to watch the thread and see if I can add anything but other than that I will leave it up to you guys to talk. Thanks for replying and clarifying this.
Jduke,

I am glad to read that you agree with me (you can't be all bad!. that's a joke). I will be writing some articles on this subject and sending them out to the Oil and Wine E-mail list. If you are interesting in receiving them drop me a line at [email protected] (that applies to anyone else who might be interested as well).

Be blessed in Christ,

Phil Debenham

If we go by that 1000 of our days is like one day to God. Then let me see, the days of creation, that would mean that it took 6000 days in our time that the world was created by God.

Not literal days as we count them by.

That is my thoughts on it.

In the beginning God said "let there be light." Then there was light.

If we go by that 1000 of our days is like one day to God. Then let me see, the days of creation, that would mean that it took 6000 days in our time that the world was created by God.

Not literal days as we count them by.

That is my thoughts on it.
JH,

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but...

The reason theologians have tried to lengthened the "days" in Genesis one is to try and "fit" millions of years into the bible. They have tried to do this in order to account for the age of the earth as "science" has theorized it. However, if we take a day to be a thousand years (misunderstanding the New Testament passage altogether), that would give us 6,000 years. However "science" doesn't need 6,000 years, it needs 16 million years! Lenghtening the word day ('yom' in Hebrew) to fit that many years makes a mockery of the language. God said "day" (yom), and He meant day (a regular day.)

In the beginning God said "let there be light." Then there was light.
Yes He did.

What about dinosaur fossils?

Oops you already said that talaniman, sorry! :p

Also, I'm interested in what creationists think about DNA? Like for example, how do you explain that chimpanzees and humans share over 97% of the same DNA, if we don't have a common ancestor?

orange,

I must have missed this post. Sorry I didn't answer you sooner. Actually the range of homology (similarity) in DNA between humans and chimps have been quoted as being 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending upon who is telling the story. However, homology is not evidence for common ancestry as against a common designer (God). Consider, for example, a Porche and a VW Beetle. Both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other similarities (homologies). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Homology fits the creation view of beginnings.

Further, the '97% similarity' is somewhat arbitrary and is not used by those working in molecular homology because of that. If you would like I can explain this to you as well, but it will take a little more detail. Let me know.

Phil Debenham

As science unfolds new fact to us our veiw of the world is bound to change.We see the world in an entirely different light than our ancestors did 2000 years ago and our descendants will see things differently than we do. Its called progress.That doesn't mean man came from apes,but the similarity between man and ape is close and undeniable.Man has always believed in god whether christian or not and we all are ruled by what every one around us is doing.I have no idea what the writers of the bible or any other holy book had in mind or if they were inspired by god or what.I really don't care.The God of my understanding, that I pray to for guidance and strength is not found in a book but in my heart,and among the things that I go through everyday, and how I deal with what life throws at me,and the people I encounter as I move through my day.You can put any label you please on it but to me God is a very personal thing that I try to share through my actions and interactions.No one has a hold on what it is anyone believes in ,not the christians nor muslims or any one else,whatever works for you to make you a fine human being is good enough for me. And yes I do believe that dinosuars existed millions of years ago,and God put them here.:cool:

Further to the monkeying about with Deoxyriboneucleic Acid data, I can only speak for my own family. Others must speak for their forbears, or forchimps, etc. Yet the question of 'similarity' is not as simple or straightforward as it perhaps ought to be considering the mathematical percentages that have been posited.

We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale (two mammals) should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have many morphological similarities, so we would expect similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA, but not totally like human DNA.

Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of human beings. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes and proteins that do these same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example those that code for the histone proteins, are almost identical.

What of the 97% similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures quoted do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Complex translation machinery in the cell ‘reads’ a series of three-letter ‘words’ of these chemical ‘letters’ and translates these into the sequences of the 20 different amino acids in proteins (a typical protein has hundreds of amino acids). The human DNA has over 3 billion nucleotides. Neither the human nor the chimp DNA has been anywhere near fully sequenced to allow a proper comparison.2 It may be a while before such a comparison can be made because it may be 2005 before we have the full sequence of human DNA, and chimp DNA sequencing has a much lower priority.

Where then did the ‘97% similarity’ come from? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization, where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA.3 However, there are various reasons DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity. Consequently, those working in the field of molecular homology do not use this somewhat arbitrary figure; other figures derived from the shape of the ‘melting curve’ are used instead.4 Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? Perhaps it served the purpose of indoctrinating the scientifically illiterate with evolution—like the imaginative ‘ape-men’ reconstructions in many museums.

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith.’ Sarich and co-workers5 obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies.6 Sarich et al. discovered considerable sloppiness in the way Sibley and Ahlquist generated their data as well as their statistical analysis. Even if everything else were above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, the work lacked true replication, so no real meaning can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

What if human and chimp DNA were even 96% similar? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of 500 pages each.7 If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to about 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by small control sequences.

The dissimilarities between the DNA of humans and the more complex genetic make-up of frogs, should, if we were to fall prey to simplistic and po;ular notions of genetic science, would lead us to conclude, wrongly, that our little green friends were far more intellectually gifted than ourselves. A little sober reflection will show how foolish we would be were we to arrive at any such conclusion.

In summary, the methods used to generate the figures so often quoted (and misquoted!) are very clumsy. (A recent much more rigorous comparison found 95% similarity. See, for example, RJ Britten's paper, Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99:13633–13635, 2002.) They do not legitimize the claim that people and chimps are related in an evolutionary sense. The more we learn of the complexities of the biochemical systems in our cells, the more marvelous they become. Furthermore, even if we accept the data as legitimate, knwowing what we do know about biolotgiucal development and its posisbilities, there seems to be no way that mutations could bridge the gap between primates and humans.






M:)RGANITE

How much clearer can I be. God's day is different than our day. God said it took 6 days. 6 days in God's time. How does that equal our time. It does not.

Joe

orange,
Further, the '97% similarity' is somewhat arbitrary and is not used by those working in molecular homology because of that. If you would like I can explain this to you as well, but it will take a little more detail. Let me know.

Phil Debenham

Sincere thanks for your offer. But I was a Zoology major before switching to fine art. I have 3 year bachelor's degree in Zoology. Anyway... honestly I'm not bragging about that, but my point is that I actually know a LOT about DNA, evolution, biology, etc... even if I don't sound like a thesis paper when I write! :p I'm not sure what you could tell me that I don't know already from university. And nothing that I've heard on the thread so far (in defense of creationism, I mean) is new or makes me want to change my mind about its legitimacy. If you can tell me something I've never heard before, or direct me to a book written by a legitimate scientist who is also a Christian and believes in creationism, I would be very interested in that!

How much clearer can I be. God's day is different than our day. God said it took 6 days. 6 days in God's time. How does that equal our time. It does not.

Joe
Joe,

It is not quite clear, Joe, but it is incorrect. God created everything, including the 24 hour day. It is quite reasonable to understand that when God, who created the day (yom), uses the word day (yom), He means day (yom).

To God, who created language, words mean what they say unless they are clearly used allegorically. To God "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day" is clearly allegorical and means that God exists outside of time and is not limited by it as we are. The usage of the word day in Genesis One is clearly understood without allegory and should therefore be understood a regular day.

As noted above, the word day in Genesis One is 'yom' in the Hebrew. While 'yom' can have other meanings, it's primary meaning is 'day.' Let's go outside of Genesis One and see how the word is used in the rest of the Old Testament. Whenever the word 'day' is used with a number, over 400 times, it always means an ordinary day. Whenever 'evening and morning' are used as a phrase, 38 times, without the word 'day' it always means an ordinary day. Whenever the words 'evening' or 'morning'are used with the word 'day', 23 times each, it always means an ordinary day. Whenever 'night' is used with the word 'day', 52 times, it always means an ordinary day.

Now go back to Genesis One. What do we see? Morning, Evening, Number, Day - Morning, Evening, Number, Day - Morning, Evening, Number, Day... and so one. How much clearer could the language be? It is an ordinary day!

Happy New Year my Canadian brother,

Phil Debenham

Sincere thanks for your offer. But I was a Zoology major before switching to fine art. I have 3 year bachelor's degree in Zoology. Anyways... honestly I'm not bragging about that, but my point is that I actually know a LOT about DNA, evolution, biology, etc.... even if I don't sound like a thesis paper when I write! :p I'm not sure what you could tell me that I don't know already from university. And nothing that I've heard on the thread so far (in defense of creationism, I mean) is new or makes me want to change my mind about its legitimacy. If you can tell me something I've never heard before, or direct me to a book written by a legitimate scientist who is also a Christian and believes in creationism, I would be very interested in that!

Sincere thanks for your offer. But I was a Zoology major before switching to fine art. I have 3 year bachelor's degree in Zoology. Anyways... honestly I'm not bragging about that, but my point is that I actually know a LOT about DNA, evolution, biology, etc.... even if I don't sound like a thesis paper when I write! :p I'm not sure what you could tell me that I don't know already from university. And nothing that I've heard on the thread so far (in defense of creationism, I mean) is new or makes me want to change my mind about its legitimacy. If you can tell me something I've never heard before, or direct me to a book written by a legitimate scientist who is also a Christian and believes in creationism, I would be very interested in that!

A great site you might want to check out is www.answersingenesis.com, also check out the Institute for Creation Research on line.

Books:

"The Genesis Record" by Henry M. Morris

"The Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris

"Scientific Creationism" by Henry M. Morris
Dr. Henry M. Morris is the president of the Institure for Creation Research and professor of hydrology in the institute's division of graduate study and research. He received his Ph.D from the Univeristy of Minnesota and for twenty-eight years as chairman of the civil engineering department at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

"The Biotic Message" by Walter ReMine

"Astronomy and Creation" by Dr. Don DeYoung

"The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere" by Dr. Larry Verdiman

Right there in Genesis is the account of creation and it says, the first day, the second day, and so forth upm to the seventh day. The belief that 'day' in English as meaning, and only meaning, the twenty-four hour day is not supported by the original language, regardless of how it has been traditionally understood.

There is nothing in the Bible that describes the days of creatioon as twenty-four hour days, just as there is nothing that say otherwise. What then do we have as a reliable guide to reaching correct understanding?

The Hebrew word 'yowm' is the equivalent of the English word 'day' - but neither is used exclusively to mean strictly a twenty-four hour period unless the context forces us to conlcude that it can mean nothing else.

If we look at English meanings of 'day,' we will find that while it is used of a twenty-four hour time, that usage is not exclusive and attempts to make it exclusive will fall under their own weight.

Hebrew days were calculated "from even unto even" (Lev. 23:32), meaning from sunset to sunset.

That period between dawn and dark is the day as distinguished from the night.
(Gen. 8:22; Ps. 19: 2.)

According to Jesus, a day is twenlve hours: "Are there not twelve hours in the day?"
(John 11:9.)

A day is a specified age, time, or period. (Job 19:25).

'yowm, pronounced yome, is a noun and carries all the following meanings:
A day
A time
A year
The day, as opposed to the night
A 24 hour period
A division of time
A working day
A day's journey
As 'days,' a lifetime
A time
A period unspecified, hence, without limit

The argument for taking Creation 'days' as literal chronological days is not profound, and is not particularly convincing.

One reason given in support is said to be that Hebrew word for "day" in Gen. 1 is defined as an ordinary solar day the first time it is used (v. 5).

However, that understanding begs the question by assuming that the earth relative to the solar system at that time was exactly as it is now. That seems to demand a simple explanation for something that could have been anything but simple.

It is correct to say that when 'yowm' is used in the Bible it often means a common day. However, it is equally correct to say that when it is used in the Bible it does not always mean an ordinary day.

In the absence of a solemn declaration from God as to the length of the creative periods we are left to guess and deduce. Experience show us that when men second-guess God, they are, because they have to be, wrong. If men could fathom of themselves what is in God's mind, then God would not be transcendental, and if he is not transcendental then he is not God.

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent…. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than man.-
(I Cor. 1:19-25.)

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God [knowth them].
(I Cor. 2:11.)

There is never a promise that everything in the mind of the Omniscient God knows will be told to man on request to satisfy his curiosity without advancing his welfare.

The Lord chose Peter and the other apostles for their humility, responsiveness, and childlike faith and devotion, not for their intellectual attainments, neiyther did he educate them in the minutiae of the scts of God. He told them what they needed to know to serve as his emissaries and to minister in the cure of souls.

Though Paul was an educated man, he was nevertheless pliable and teachable, and he stressed the difference between useless knowledge and the knowledge that leads one to salvation as a constant theme:

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

and also:

The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.


It was concerning the learning and wisdom of men that made the Preacher observe: "Vanity of vanities . . . all is vanity,"

God, speaking of the mysteries of creation and existence, taunted Job:

"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. . . .

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? . . . Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place . . . Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? . . . Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?"

Man may understand through the wisdom that God has through time bestowed upon his children many things that Job did not understand. But man still cannot do the simplest arithmetic of God's creations and compute the relationship of the earth, the moon, and the sun, to say nothing of the sun and his whole planetary system, and infinitely farther beyond this, the mysteries of the universe.

Man still does not understand the laws that brough into being and that govern the Pleiades, Orion, Mazzaroth, and Arcturus, and that keep them in their places in the visible universe, and that hold our universe on its way in orderly procession through the deep reaches of endless space. Narrow indeed are the limits of the finite mind when it attempts tp comprehend, or even touch, infinity, eternity.

On our journey to immortality and eternal life we must humbly try to comprehend and live the simple truths of the everlasting Gospel, framed for the weakest and most unlearned amongst us, so simple indeed that "wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."

Eternal truth is not foolishness, but infinite wisdom, but whether the gates of heaven swing in, outwards, or up-and-over, and the length of the creative 'days' are matters for spedculation that have no bearing on the salvation born of Christ's infinite atonement. They are interesting questions, but they are not hills that a Christian should choose to die on.

"Now, unto the King Eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever, and ever. Amen."
(1 Timothy 1.17)




M:)RGANITE

Eternal truth is not foolishness, but infinite wisdom, but whether the gates of heaven swing in, outwards, or up-and-over, and the length of the creative 'days' are matters for spedculation that have no bearing on the salvation born of Christ's infinite atonement. They are interesting questions, but they are not hills that a Christian should choose to die on.
M:)RGANITE

The reason the days of creation are important, and, in fact, hills upon which modern Christianity is dying upon, is the reason theologians have disregarded the plain language of Scripture to lengthen the "days" of Genesis One.

Genesis 1 - 11 is history. All the rest of the bible rests upon the historicity of these chapters. Indeed, they are the foundation of Christianity.

Humanistic Evolution have been postulated to destroy that foundation, Morganite. Destroy that foundation and the superstructure falls as well. The plain language of Genesis One is that "day" means "day." You have correctly noted that the word day (Yom) can mean something different than an ordinary day, but, did you know that its main meaning is "day?"

After Genesis One 'yom' is used in ways to have all of those meanings you have pointed out in this thread, but the main meaning is still "day." It is interesting to notice that in the rest of the Old Testament (after Genesis One) that whenever the word 'day' is used with a number (over 400 times) it always means an ordinary day. Whenever 'evening and morning' are used as a phrase (38 times) without the word 'day' it always means an ordinary day. Whenever the words 'evening' or 'morning' are used with the word 'day' (23 times each) it always means an ordinary day. Whenever 'night' is used with the word 'day' (52 times) it always means an ordinary day. What do we see in Genesis One? Morning, evening, number, day; morning, evening, number day; morning, evening, number day... and so on. How much clearer can it get? It is an ordinary day.

Phil Debenham

II Timothy 2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Hi, my thoughts on your 3 questions
About evolution : Why aren't apes still evolving into humans? I agree that evolution is limited in a species.
About the gap theory well maybe has something to do with the 3rd answer.
I believe I read that Abraham wrote Genesis and that God spoke to him about creating the universe in 6 days. But I think God's days weren't the same as the days He gave to man. I think they were ages because I think man came on the scene a lot later than everything else. Because a some point there were dinasoars and dinosoars are incompatible with man. So, I think God wanted to make man so He terminated all the dinos by lack of something or whatever killed them so He could create man. Because I really think that about dinosaurs.

I believe I read that Abraham wrote Genesis .......

The penteteuch is considered to be written by Moses. If this is so, then there is evidence of later redaction by others.

M:)RGANITE

I think much of the redaction is by Moses himself, although Joshua may well have completed the book. Most of Genesis 1 -11 would have been handed down from one generation to the next having been chronicled by those present at the events. Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, and so on. Thus, we have a very accurate history from the book of beginnings (especially since God was in complete control of it all.)

Phil Debenham

I agree with you Morganite and Phil... Abraham really couldn't have written Genesis. In fact, it's even questionable whether he knew how to read and write at all. He came from a nomadic tribal people, who shared their stories orally. The pentateuch was written considerably later, probably by Moses and others, as you've said.

About evolution : Why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

It's because apes are on a different evolutionary path than humans. Humans did not evolve from apes according to evolution. Both apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, but went in different evolutionary directions after that. And as far as not seeing them evolve goes, it's because not enough time has passed. According to evolution it takes millions of years for noticeable changes to occur. The apes that we know haven't been around that long.

I'm not making a case for evolution here; it's just that your statement is not correct as far as the theories of evolution go, and I wanted to point that out.

Oh, I am sorry. I did remember it wrong. I'm looking at a Women's Devotional Bible NIV right now & it says Moses writes Genesis. But what about the dinosaurs I mentioned?

So my argument against evolution is that I don't believe that a bunch of elements came together to yield a living thing. It had to be given a life force, a spark. Scientists cannot create life, they can only replicate it from a source that is living. The intricacies of the human body, the awsomeness of a bird's feathers, the detail, too incredible for me to believe this world created itself.

Hi, my thoughts on your 3 questions
About evolution : Why aren't apes still evolving into humans? I agree that evolution is limited in a species.
About the gap theory well maybe has something to do with the 3rd answer.
I believe I read that Abraham wrote Genesis and that God spoke to him about creating the universe in 6 days. But I think God's days weren't the same as the days He gave to man. I think they were ages because I think man came on the scene a lot later than everything else. Because a some point there were dinasoars and dinosoars are incompatible with man. So, I think God wanted to make man so He terminated all the dinos by lack of something or whatever killed them so He could create man. Because I really think that about dinosaurs.

Apes are not evolving into humans because evolution is not true. Evolution says that one "kind" evolves into another "kind." That is not possible and has never been observed in real science.

In Genesis 1 God tells us that He created the heavens and the earth in six days. He used the common word for day. He means a literal day. On day (not age) six he created the land animals and man. The dinosaurs were created the same day man was. God was there. He did the creating. He has told us how he did it. Why did God have to distroy the dinosaurs in order to create man? Genesis tells us that prior to the flood all animals, dinosaurs too, were vegetarians.

Genesis is a history book written by God through the agency of selected men. It should be accepted the way in which God wrote it.

Standing for the athority of the Scripture,

Phil Debenham

I think much of the redaction is by Moses himself, although Joshua may well have completed the book. Most of Genesis 1 -11 would have been handed down from one generation to the next having been chronicled by those present at the events. Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, and so on. Thus, we have a very accurate history from the book of beginnings (especially since God was in complete control of it all.)

Phil Debenham


It is obvious that Moses did not perform the redactions. The internal evidence of sources and later historical references and ideas that were wrutten back into the texts show that not to have been possible.

Another wrote that Abraham probably couldn't write. While not denying a strong oral tradition, there is ample evidence that literacy was common among the Near eastern peoples from earliest days. The idea that the Bible was remembered sufficiently without it being in written form is not viable.

Even allowing for the good faith and care of all those who might have been involved in oral transmission over a period greater than one thousand years the likelihood that the narrative would survive intact is highly improbable.

It is obvious that especially some Bible books have material in them from different and variant traditions that are evident in textual comparison exercises, and if they were reliant on oral and mnemonic sources the present variations would be enormous wide, and in many cases would resemble each other in few particulars.

M:)RGANITE

Some believe that each creative day was seven thousand years long and that the rest day would be that long as well.


In any case, the Bible tells us that God might choose to look upon a day as a thousand years as he did with Adam who died on the very day he sinned as God had promised.

Genesis 2
16The LORD God (Q)commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it (R)you will surely die."

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Genesis 5 (New American Standard Bible)
5So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

Evolution?

If by evolution is meant changes caused by the survival of the fittest within an environment, then yes. If by evolution is meant that one creature will eventually transform itself into another, crossing the boundaries mentioned in Genesis, via the mutation process, then no.

BTW

Some scholars see a difference between the creation of the universe mentioned in Genesis 1:1 and the earth-human-habitation-preparation days mentioned later. This viewpoint allows for the billions of years which scientists tell us about.