In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Why is everything so fixed to light? A planet can spin and have artificial time, even without light. Light is called day, and darkness is called night. That hardly means that it has to keep happening or that it even happened after the event. The light only lasted for less than a second and then it was dark again. Evening (night/darkness) started the first day, not the light. The earth more than likely started spinning then, but how fast and how long it took to spin is not known. It does not matter even how far away from the sun a planet is, it can still rotate. The earth currently spins at 1000 MPH if you are near the equator that speed is less when you move toward the poles. There was no light, until the 4th day, and it was not because the earth was motionless. It was because the light of the sun had not completely fired up. Personally, if the earth had moved from further out away from the sun, the sun may not have even been the brightest thing in the sky. Jupiter and Saturn may have been the two luminaries, that provided the light during the day and night.
Some speculate that a shock wave from nearby could have caused the nebulae to collapse and caused the sun to start forming. According to Genesis, the "let there be light" part was the beginning of the universe, but most relegate the universe to have had a different start all on it's own. But either way, the sun still went through a period of darkness, after the initial "shock wave". Some people even claim that Uranus and Neptune are not in the right place either. Perhaps they migrated out at the same time the earth was migrating in. Genesis does not name the two luminaries as the sun and moon, because they probably were not the sun and moon. But humans lived on the earth so explaining that the Sun and moon came later would not have made sense. We may have liked to of had that pointed out to us today, but it was not necessary to point that out, then. The Sun just kept getting closer and brighter over a long period of time, until the sun was bright in the sky, and eventually the moon became a satellite, and humans started to use a lunar calendar. The Egyptians used a solar calendar, but it seemed the Mesopotamians used a calendar that was based on Jupiter's orbit. The Hebrews started with a lunar calendar.
The boost in agriculture was probably because the earth was now closer to the sun, was receiving the full benefit of the sun, and it now had the moon as a satellite, and it was the first time there were seasons, and the tidal influence of the moon. Yes the Babylonians tracked the motion of the sun, but not at first. The Mesopotamians before the time of the memorable floods, were using Jupiter as the central object to determine time and calendar. The earth just ended up in an orbit that coincided with Jupiter's 12 month orbital pattern. Using the sun while the earth was migrating, probably never yielded a complete pattern during the migration. The current model has Jupiter migrating, but if that was the case, it would have been hard for the Mesopotamians to use Jupiter as it would have been erratic. By the time the Egyptians started their observations, the sun was becoming more normalized as the earth was now settling into it's current orbit. A migration would also explain why the Babylonians added the sun and moon gods in last. They were not primary during the migration. The other planets were closer and more than likely more impressive looking than they are today being further away from them.
Some speculate that a shock wave from nearby could have caused the nebulae to collapse and caused the sun to start forming. According to Genesis, the "let there be light" part was the beginning of the universe, but most relegate the universe to have had a different start all on it's own. But either way, the sun still went through a period of darkness, after the initial "shock wave". Some people even claim that Uranus and Neptune are not in the right place either. Perhaps they migrated out at the same time the earth was migrating in. Genesis does not name the two luminaries as the sun and moon, because they probably were not the sun and moon. But humans lived on the earth so explaining that the Sun and moon came later would not have made sense. We may have liked to of had that pointed out to us today, but it was not necessary to point that out, then. The Sun just kept getting closer and brighter over a long period of time, until the sun was bright in the sky, and eventually the moon became a satellite, and humans started to use a lunar calendar. The Egyptians used a solar calendar, but it seemed the Mesopotamians used a calendar that was based on Jupiter's orbit. The Hebrews started with a lunar calendar.
The boost in agriculture was probably because the earth was now closer to the sun, was receiving the full benefit of the sun, and it now had the moon as a satellite, and it was the first time there were seasons, and the tidal influence of the moon. Yes the Babylonians tracked the motion of the sun, but not at first. The Mesopotamians before the time of the memorable floods, were using Jupiter as the central object to determine time and calendar. The earth just ended up in an orbit that coincided with Jupiter's 12 month orbital pattern. Using the sun while the earth was migrating, probably never yielded a complete pattern during the migration. The current model has Jupiter migrating, but if that was the case, it would have been hard for the Mesopotamians to use Jupiter as it would have been erratic. By the time the Egyptians started their observations, the sun was becoming more normalized as the earth was now settling into it's current orbit. A migration would also explain why the Babylonians added the sun and moon gods in last. They were not primary during the migration. The other planets were closer and more than likely more impressive looking than they are today being further away from them.
Yup, not sure if I'd call it illogical, since they had a different conception of the universe. But the errors in from true cosmology occur within the first sentences, despite Berzerker's reframing.
"The boost in agriculture"? When exactly did God-the-asteroid supposedly punt the Earth into its Titus-Bode-approved spot? Before or after God-the-astronaut arrived and set up pseudo-Babylonian starbases?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Sure any new colonization just happens without taking into consideration a hydroponics group that keeps plants going until there is a suitable land area capable of producing vegetation in mass quantities. From what I have read from several sources that after a memorial event there was an agricultural explosion that allowed tremendous growth in the Indo-European area. I do not think there is any "set" date. I have no clue what alien astronaut incident you are referring to. We are talking about the inhabitance of earth, that most think could not survive any drastic changes on earth. It's a pity, because the only time they "think" they may have the ability to do so, they will not have to. Why do humans keep a doomsday clock any ways? They claim the species was not around the last time, why would they be so dead set on it happening to them?
Suggesting that the Agricultural Revolution was spurred on the Earth moving closer to the Sun would indicate that it happened just 10,000 years or so ago. That seems ludicrous, to say the least.
Lexicus
Deity
Unsurprising when they are constantly faced with the distinctly more ludicrous claim that there is a god.
Actually address the point, please. I'm not interested in yet another rendition of whether the Judaeo-Christian God exists or not.
I don't see it as more ludicrous, but then I'm a theist.
Lexicus
Deity
I'm an atheist, but I rarely make the positive claim that there is no God. It's a lot easier and more skeptical to simply point out the deficiencies in claims that god(s) exist.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I doubt the Judaeo-Christian minded thinker would have come up with that. Most people are theist, they just happen to grow up around humans who describe God in different ways. I did address the point as being equally ludicrous.
It sounds ludicrous because your "long age" acceptance is a stronger reality than "theism." The moon coming from a planet that roughly has the same age (as the earth) does not mean they formed together in the same spot. They just ended up in the same spot. Either that or the ancients had better imaginations, and sophisticated ways of recording down those imaginations, and called it the zodiac. I am not claiming anything about the Mesopotamians. That is what Ptolemy wrote about them. I have not read where Ptolemy thought the earth migrated in. At that time, everyone thought the earth was the center. It has been pointed out by scholars of the ancient stargazers, that they thought they had the ability to "fix" the position of the earth, like it had been "on the move". Once fixed, they must have also passed on the notion it was fixed in a central location. Even Genesis "seems" to read that signs and seasons and thus sun and moon were "instant". But it literally does not read that way at all. At the most it may be misleading and/or ambiguous.
If you make extraordinary claims (which the Earth moving its orbit just a few millennia ago most certainly is), then, as they say, you need extraordinary evidence. You don't get to blithely toss off a line that if only I believed in God more than science it would seem sensible, because not only is that potentially offensive, it also answers absolutely nothing.
"Goddidit" is never an acceptable answer in any discussion outside of theological matters.
"Goddidit" is never an acceptable answer in any discussion outside of theological matters.
Lexicus
Deity
Even then theology is only cool to the extent it considers goddidit an unacceptable explanation.
Berzerker
Deity
Because Middle Eastern tradition and beyond has the water preceding God in the story. Thats why the Psalmist doesn't claim God created the water. Neither does Genesis... But you disagree, you believe God created the universe (which obviously includes the water) before the 1st day of creation. I invite you to quote anything in the Bible crediting God with the creation of the water in Gen 1:2... He gets credit for the "Seas", but not the water that fills them.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... What are the heavens and the earth and when do they appear in the story? The first mention of anything named Heaven was on the 2nd day and it was placed amidst the waters, and an earth with form (dry land) appeared from under the water on the 3rd day. Genesis doesn't tell us the origin of the planet covered by water, it was already there before God's "wind" arrived to produce day and night.
The fountains of the deep were opened and then it rained. Something caused the ocean to flood the land and fill the skies with water vapor. Maybe it was an impact, many flood myths describe a celestial event.
Good question... So far we dont have evidence of plate tectonics dating that far back nor do we know how much water was present. If the world formed at the asteroid belt then it might have been covered by an ocean dozens of miles deep, far too deep for volcanoes to breach the surface.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I am not sure how you got from God "is" to God "did it"? You accept theism, but you are stuck accepting that humans wrote about an experience that you claim, could never happen. On the other hand, I was just pointing out, that some things the ancients wrote about make more sense. I am never going to change someone's mind who is made, up and refuses to change. Technically I have no clue why modern humans figure the moon came much later in earth's formation. I have just accepted the point.
It's nigh impossible to describe the Genesis account in modern terms ... it was describing a different model of the universe. It's why the misunderstandings were perpetuated in the later texts. There's a reason future generations thought the Earth was a flat piece of land with a canopy dropped over it ... it's what the earlier texts described.
Lexicus
Deity
I actually think this is somewhat misleading. People think the earth is flat with a dome of sky over it because that's intuitively what it looks like when you're standing on the earth. The majority of the population was too illiterate ever to have read any of these texts in any case, and most educated people (in the West anyway, don't know so much about elsewhere) knew the world was round.
Berzerker
Deity
The sun existed, but the world of Gen 1:2 covered by water and darkness was further away from that sun, it was at what is now the asteroid belt, the snow line. The sun was also weaker and the moon would have been much dimmer, neither "light" served the roles they were assigned on the 4th day. Genesis is describing the Earth's origin where the firmament called Heaven separated the waters of that dark, primordial world.
The water precedes "day", that is what God named the light. Day and night result from this world spinning near the sun.
Both records say our water came from further away
You can't have it both ways. Either the Sun was significant enough to allow liquid water or it wasn't.
I think most people can agree that God is not an asteroid, at least. timtofly should keep his "ludicrous" to himself.
Similar threads
