In the Beginning...

[timtofly]

The unchanging 24-hour day is a modern invention. Before clocks were common days were measured from the time of sunrise to sunset.

So at one point a day was not 24 hours?

 

[Lexicus]

So at one point a day was not 24 hours?

The length of days varied seasonally, because as I said, before timekeeping devices came into use people measured days based on the length of light, so a day was either the period of time when the Sun was in the sky or a complete cycle of night and day.

The authors of Genesis certainly had no idea that the Earth rotated or orbited the Sun, and consequently the 24-hour solar day based on the amount of time it takes the Earth to turn 360 degrees would have been completely unknown to them.

 

[Arakhor]

So, Tim, since you seem to believe that Noah, Abraham and Adam actually existed, doubt the existence of species evolution and have expressed support for the (frankly nonsensical) water canopy theory, why are you busy trying to convince people that the Fourth Day does not feature the creation of the sun, moon and stars? What is gained by disputing what we have established before as the inspired Word of God in this one particular case?

 

[tetley]

So at one point a day was not 24 hours?

Correct. Even anti-Creationist scientists believe this. Due to tidal effects, the day was 21 hours long during the Pre-cambrian period.

 

[warpus]

Why doesn't that apply to the people claiming ancient peoples only knew about 5 visible planets?

It does, though!

There is 0 evidence that those people could build telescopes capable of seeing planets not visible with the naked eye. That technology just did not seem to exist at the time, so there is no way for those people to have been able to see those planets.

Maybe you mis-read what I wrote. I wrote that you were cherrypicking through examples to find the patterns you want - the ones that support your hypothesis.

The people who are saying "The ancient {whoever} only saw certain planets" are not doing that. They aren't sifting through data to find patterns to support their conclusion. They looked at the evidence and the only viable conclusion they could come to was the one they came to. There was no pattern searching.

 

[Senethro]

How is it you can know pre-cambrian day length but have odd beliefs about chromosomes? Well, this is the right thread for compartmentalization.

 

[Berzerker]

No. As already mentioned, a water planet is not 'without form'.

Gen 1:2 doesn't say a water planet was without form, it says the "dry land" under that water was without form - it wasn't dry land, yet. The dry land was without form...

Which would be already obvious from God creating Earth, I imagine. This is not what's generally considered 'an extraterrestrial' though.

And it was obvious, but extra-terrestrial means:

originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere

Extraterrestrial refers to any object or being beyond (extra-) the planet Earth (terrestrial).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraterrestrial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial

By definition God is extra-terrestrial

Since this has been debunked already repeatedly, I'm not even going to bother again. The question is just: Why are you repeating this intellectual dishonesty ad infinitum?

Repeatedly debunked? Where? Why do you keep dodging questions?

It quite clearly does say so: "Let there be light" - after which God sets "the two lights" in the skies.

You're changing your argument again, oh intellectually honest one

You said God created the two great lights, the text doesn't say that nor does "let there be light" refer to the creation of the sun - it refers to the world spinning near the sun, ie the separation of night and day. But a description of Earth's sky must wait until after the Earth actually appears, thats why the lights appear on the 4th day - they follow Earth's appearance on the 3rd day.

If that's not creation, I don't know what would be.

Try reading the text... If you need more help read the definitions of the words used in the text

In both cases the light (also created by God) and the wood are already there. And yet, we call this creation. Just as when a writer writes a book (that wasn't there before - even though the paper was).

The water was there but "we" dont say God created it and neither does Genesis...

 

[Arakhor]

You said God created the two great lights, the text doesn't say that nor does "let there be light" refer to the creation of the sun - it refers to the world spinning near the sun, ie the separation of night and day. But a description of Earth's sky must wait until after the Earth actually appears, thats why the lights appear on the 4th day - they follow Earth's appearance on the 3rd day.

Really now? What sort of daft writer refers to the Earth spinning near the Sun before he even mentions that it exists?

 

[tetley]

How is it you can know pre-cambrian day length but have odd beliefs about chromosomes? Well, this is the right thread for compartmentalization.

Because I have access to the same Google you do.

 

[timtofly]

Really now? What sort of daft writer refers to the Earth spinning near the Sun before he even mentions that it exists?

All those people who are posting that the sun was there on day 1, and then "re-appearing" on day 4.

All those posters who claim the un-formed earth which was hidden in a formed water planet created at the asteroid belt, waiting at the edge of the solar system which was not there, because God had not arrived yet. When God arrived and asked why it was waiting there, God decided to create a solar system for it to have a home.

Correct. Even anti-Creationist scientists believe this. Due to tidal effects, the day was 21 hours long during the Pre-cambrian period.

They are not anti-Creationist. They are evolutionist who think that creationist do not believe in evolution. They are anti-non evolutionist. It seems that some evolutionist believe in creation, and that things can be created, as long as such a thing had no form.

So if a rotation only lasted for 21 hours, was the earth smaller with less mass, or did it just rotate faster? If a day only lasted 21 hours then was there a time that it only lasted 12 hours? If a day was only 12 hours did that mean that time went by twice as fast as it does now? When it said 500 years, did they actually mean 250 years? They say that a dog ages 7 years for every human year.

The length of days varied seasonally, because as I said, before timekeeping devices came into use people measured days based on the length of light, so a day was either the period of time when the Sun was in the sky or a complete cycle of night and day.

The authors of Genesis certainly had no idea that the Earth rotated or orbited the Sun, and consequently the 24-hour solar day based on the amount of time it takes the Earth to turn 360 degrees would have been completely unknown to them.

Then how do we know that; at the time being described, it was even the same as now? God was describing the event, as God was the only one there to describe it.

So, Tim, since you seem to believe that Noah, Abraham and Adam actually existed, doubt the existence of species evolution and have expressed support for the (frankly nonsensical) water canopy theory, why are you busy trying to convince people that the Fourth Day does not feature the creation of the sun, moon and stars? What is gained by disputing what we have established before as the inspired Word of God in this one particular case?

Are you picking and choosing what is nonsensical about God?

Some humans claim that it is nonsensical that God exist.

Even Creationist have given into the lie that a canopy is nonsensical, and there are very few canopyist left. I think there are even fewer literalist left, because obviously at some point in time huge assumptions that do not fit a literal reading have been introduced and taught as dogmatic facts. I don't accept there was a canopy because it does not make sense. I accept it because that is what the writing states.

The answer to your question about the sun and moon is simply because the text does not mention the sun or moon, but states there were two lights in the sky. For all of the assuming every one is doing about the passage, it could be describing a totally different solar system, as there were no planets mentioned at all.

In even debating the topic, one has to get past certain points, otherwise some points do not even make sense mentioning, because they are mute, until the other points are clarified. The first point is accepting that God even exist. Why argue about the rest, if that is not true? The next point would be when did God show up in the whole process. If you get that point wrong, there are bound to be contradictions all around. I am not insisting on anything in particular. I have been insisting that one has to start at the beginning and figure things out. If it still does not make sense, then we are here just to quibble over our own pet peeves.

 

[Senethro]

Because I have access to the same Google you do.

And yet there are no google hits for 16 racial chromosomes. Curious.

 

[Lexicus]

So if a rotation only lasted for 21 hours, was the earth smaller with less mass, or did it just rotate faster? If a day only lasted 21 hours then was there a time that it only lasted 12 hours? If a day was only 12 hours did that mean that time went by twice as fast as it does now? When it said 500 years, did they actually mean 250 years? They say that a dog ages 7 years for every human year.

It simply means that if you define a day as the period of time in which the Earth rotates 360 degrees, the day was shorter in the past because the Earth's rotation has been slowing.
The reason for this is that angular momentum "leaks" out via the Earth's tidal interactions with the Moon. I forget exactly how the equations go but they're not difficult; you can probably look it up online easily enough.

Tetley's formulation was somewhat misleading in that the rotation has been slowing continuously since the Earth and Moon formed, it's not like pre-cambrian day was 21 hrs and then during the cambrian it suddenly switched to 24. They did not believe that a "day" was defined as "the amount of time the Earth takes to execute a complete rotation" because they did not know the Earth rotates. There is also no reason to posit that what they meant by "day" was a period of millions of years or anything silly like that.

Then how do we know that; at the time being described, it was even the same as now? God was describing the event, as God was the only one there to describe it.

We know because the authors of Genesis had no knowledge of any of this science stuff.

 

[timtofly]

We know because the authors of Genesis had no knowledge of any of this science stuff.

So God was drunk when the universe was created? Or was God drunk, when God gave Moses the details?

 

[Lexicus]

Since I think God is a fictional character of mythology you're barking up the wrong tree here. It's not difficult to explain why preliterate, ignorant herdsmen would get scientific facts completely wrong; it becomes much more difficult to explain it if we first assume it was dictated by an omnipotent/omniscient being.

 

[tetley]

I was just misquoted.

Also, no, even anti-creationist scientists believe the earth once had 21-hour days. As in no Creation, no Creator, the earth just popped up in a wild coincidence of atoms.

 

[tetley]

Since I think God is a fictional character of mythology you're barking up the wrong tree here. It's not difficult to explain why preliterate, ignorant herdsmen would get scientific facts completely wrong; it becomes much more difficult to explain it if we first assume it was dictated by an omnipotent/omniscient being.

To put things in perspective, though, 3,000 years from now (if mankind exists, which I doubt), YOU will be that preliterate, ignorant herdsman.

 

[Arakhor]

Are you picking and choosing what is nonsensical about God?

No, I am saying it is nonsensical to adopt a creationist/literalist stance on the Bible and then start trying to come up with naturalistic explanations for why the Bible is literally correct. It makes even less sense to start asserting that certain elements simply didn't happen as described, whilst still maintaining a seemingly literalist viewpoint.

Even Creationist have given into the lie that a canopy is nonsensical, and there are very few canopyist left. ... I don't accept there was a canopy because it does not make sense. I accept it because that is what the writing states.

Please quote literal chapter and verse as to where the water canopy around the Earth is mentioned in the Bible. Moreover, a lie is a deliberate untruth, saying something that you know to be wrong. It does not simply mean, "something with which I disagree".

The answer to your question about the sun and moon is simply because the text does not mention the sun or moon, but states there were two lights in the sky. For all of the assuming every one is doing about the passage, it could be describing a totally different solar system, as there were no planets mentioned at all.

It could be, but that's patently ridiculous. Why even make such a suggestion?

 

[Lexicus]

To put things in perspective, though, 3,000 years from now (if mankind exists, which I doubt), YOU will be that preliterate, ignorant herdsman.

I sure will. I wasn't saying that as a judgment, simply as a fact. I was not denigrating the authors of Genesis, though I can see why it maybe came across that way. Hopefully the hypothetical humans of 3,000 years from now won't look down on me for not knowing all the cool stuff they'll know.

 

[Lexicus]

I was just misquoted.

Indeed. Too many T's up in here

 

[tetley]

As practicing scientists, the way to put Genesis to the test is clear. I think it's to safe to say in 3,000 years we will know just a little more about space and cosmology than we do now. So to test it, we just need to freeze one member of this forum for 3,000 years. And if the Biblical account seems to better match what we know at that time, then we know God is real, and we should adopt the Bible as the gold standard for which we pursue all future space research. And if cutting-edge science at the time debunks the Bible, we can blow it off.

Now, to just find that one person to freeze for 3,000 years. I might have my opinions, but I'm not sayin'.