What's in a Day?

[BHughesNC]

I'm having a difficult time debating with my granchildren about creationism, I think it is because all they teach in school is evolution.

This is a pretty good article on the meaning of " a day"
The Meaning of "Day"

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5).

Read Article

Bobby

Originally Posted by BHughesNC

I'm having a difficult time debating with my granchildren about creationism, I think it is because all they teach in school is evolution.

This is a pretty good article on the meaning of " a day"
The Meaning of "Day"

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5).

Read Article

Bobby

Bobby, I'm with you 100% Yom=Day.

I am a firm creationist, I believe the genesis account to be perfectly accurate and the exact truth, that God Created the universe and everyting in it at his spoken word in 6 literal days.

Here's my issue,

Until the fourth day there was no solor 'day' (cycle) with which we get our measurement of morning and evening being a day as we know it.

That leaves days 1-3 at an undertermined length of time as we measure it. Its always been my assumption that since the term is used for each day 1-7, then it is the same time incrument each day. My assumption is based on the consistancy of God, demonstrated in his character and attributes.

But I have never been able to settle this issue in my head, it remains one of those things I will ask God when I face him.

I have tons of articles by Dr. Morris, I am on his mailing list for ICR. I feel so highly about him and his orginization that I regularly send funds to aid his program and continued research. I have visited his intstitute in San Diego several times. Its absolutely fascinating!

Thanks for posting this article.

[Ted]

BH

Sorry to say but that article is nonsense. Perhaps he got his PhD. from some kindergarten class.

Creationist scientists are wannabe scientists. It is a total denial of reality.

Shalom
Ted

[Accountable]

I don't get why some people insist the two theories are mutually exclusive.

Also, why is it important if the day was 24 hours, a 16-hour workday, or from the time God started work until He took a break?

Originally Posted by Ted

BH

Sorry to say but that article is nonsense. Perhaps he got his PhD. from some kindergarten class.

Creationist scientists are wannabe scientists. It is a total denial of reality.

Shalom
Ted

His PH.d is from the University of Minnisota and its in Hydraulic Engineering.

Go to one of this presentation and try to refute on of the scientists that work at ICR, anyone of them would show you the models and diagrams of why the slow transformation of the evolutionary model has flaws that preculde it as a rational theory.

Your always telling me to look to the scholars, why not give it a try yourself?

[Ted]

I have no problem with creation being taught in a religion class where all faiths are talked about.

Creationism does not belong in a science class. Myths are for English or religion class.

Hiding our children from reality is a very dangerous practice. I've seen the results from so called Christian Schools and they are not very good. On this I speak as a professional educator and administrator.

Shalom
Ted

Originally Posted by Accountable

I don't get why some people insist the two theories are mutually exclusive.

Also, why is it important if the day was 24 hours, a 16-hour workday, or from the time God started work until He took a break?

If the word day is inconsistant, then it gives rise to the notion that the rest of the creation record is possibly false.

If each day for instance is 60 million years, then it would be consistant and we'd see consistant evidence to support that. But we dont see that in the evolutionary philosophy. What we do see is life in the past tense and the proof of that past life is that we live today, we see catastrophic destruction, and we see life surviving.

For lack of other evidence I believe the Genesis record. I do not belive in any notion of evoulition except for the observable science of survivability innate to animals and mankind.

Originally Posted by Ted

I have no problem with creation being taught in a religion class where all faiths are talked about.

Creationism does not belong in a science class. Myths are for English or religion class.

Hiding our children from reality is a very dangerous practice. I've seen the results from so called Christian Schools and they are not very good. On this I speak as a professional educator and administrator.

Shalom
Ted

I agree but Science needs to be neutral.

When a scientist brings a logical and scientific study of the grand canyon and demonstrates that the grand canyon could not have been cut over b/millions of years because rock strats shows cataclysmic tearing, shearing and upheavel, pointing to a single devestating reaction of global porportion. To be refuted that hes worng without looking at his evidence is wrong, it begs consideration, just because it flashes in the face of the mainline thought to date doesnt mean its wrong.

Science needs to rest on the provable and observable and not speculate on the spiritual.

A theory is really an unprovable assumption, I call it a lie, until its proven to be the truth, we should refer to evoluiton as 'allegedly by evolution', feel free to say the same thing about creation.

Niether are fact, niether are provable, you either take one or the other by faith or like ACC meld them and live that way.

[Ted]

jester

That he is into hydraulic engineering hardly qualifies his to make comments on evolution or theology unless they have been part of his education.

In science there are no ultimate proofs. All theories are theories. That being said theoretical physicist Paul Davis has been engaged in religious topics for years and in fact accepts the reality of God. His comment on evolution is that there is enough evidence to push it beyond just a theory to a reality.

Any one scientist can make all kinds of comments. The real question is are they submitted for peer review and given some credence by fellow scientists not just in a small group but generally.

Creationists submit their work amongst themselves and their work does not pass with the general scientific community.

Creationists used to say there were no transitional fossils. They hung their whole thesis on that. Now they have found transitional fossils so they have to resort to rather unethical ways to continue their drive to prove what has no proof. In fact I know for a fact that some has taken the work of biologists out of context to make them say what the author never intended. Such "honesty" hardly brings any sort of confidence with it. Many of these men and women are simply wannabe scientists who start with the conclusion and then try to make the evidence fit. This is not bona fide science.

Shalom
Ted

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Jester

If the word day is inconsistant, then it gives rise to the notion that the rest of the creation record is possibly false.

So let it give rise. The truth will out. I gave 3 reasonable definitions of "day" (modern English word; I couldn't be arsed to find out the original), any one of which could be used consistently in the context. Notions don't matter when it comes to how the universe was created. Neither does faith, belief, or theories. I think we can all agree it exists. The knowing doesn't (or wouldn't) change the details of how it happened.

Sorry, I don't see the importance.