[phildebenham]

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?

[phildebenham]

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.

[phildebenham]

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.

[phildebenham]

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.

[jduke44]

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.

[phildebenham]

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

[JoeCanada76]

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.

[nymphetamine]

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

[phildebenham]

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.)

[phildebenham]

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

Yes He did.

[phildebenham]

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

[talaniman]

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:

[Morganite]

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

[JoeCanada76]

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]

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!

[phildebenham]

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

[phildebenham]

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

[Morganite]

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

[phildebenham]

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.

[31pumpkin]

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.