# Impossible Space Chemistry



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/weird-quantum-tunneling-enables-impossible-space-chemistry-213547174.html


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2013)

What other chemical reactions that were once thought impossible have happened in Space?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What other chemical reactions that were once thought impossible have happened in Space?



I figure some pretty cool stuff happens out there.  Imagine, dinos with human intelligence


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

There will be those here that say we've got faith that what is published is "true." I agree, maybe a little. But what I see here is an example of things that we once think are impossible, being discovered through science. The believers here have told us that it's impossible to prove their god through science, so what we've got left to discover are the things that make their god less and less likely.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> The believers here have told us that it's impossible to prove their god through science, so what we've got left to discover are the things that make their god less and less likely.



Imagine the most improbable scenario.  Let's just say a galaxy of evil unicorns exist and they are currently enslaving the neighboring galaxy which is occupied by a race of friendly troll-like critters.  All of these creatures have intelligence beyond ours, can teleport themselves, have "the force" and really cool weapons.....but, the unicorns have the advanced technology and all, because they can levitate....so the poor trolls are slaves and have to spend their lives confined to small light-beam cages making popcorn necklaces for the Big Kahuna unicorn, who loves popcorn necklaces.

How does the above scenario make God any less likely if true?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> so what we've got left to discover are the things that make their god less and less likely.



Name one.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

I was meaning more like life from a rock, or however is the most absurd way to put it.

In that situation a creator of the universe, maybe not. The god of the bible... is gone... He didn't mention saving unicorns or trolls. You've got to dig twice as deep as you already do to figure out why the Holy Bible didn't mention any of that stuff.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I was meaning more like life from a rock, or however is the most absurd way to put it.
> 
> In that situation a creator of the universe, maybe not. The god of the bible... is gone... He didn't mention saving unicorns or trolls. You've got to dig twice as deep as you already do to figure out why the Holy Bible didn't mention any of that stuff.



You've completely lost me with this post.

Can you name one thing that science has discovered that has made God "less and less likely"?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

It obviously hasn't made the god of the bible less and less likely in your eyes... Dinosaur bones from hundreds of thousands of years ago when humans didn't exist. ANYTHING from hundreds of thousands of years ago.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Dinosaur bones from hundreds of thousands of years ago when humans didn't exist. ANYTHING from hundreds of thousands of years ago.



How does that make the God of the Bible less likely?  What it tells me is that I might need to take a 2nd look at what the Bible is saying.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

And take it less literally? And figure out where you can possibly stick those million years in?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> And take it less literally?



Nah, more "accurately" according to original intent.



TripleXBullies said:


> And figure out where you can possibly stick those million years in?



That assumes they are missing


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

I once believed firmly in the creation story and the idea that a "day" in Genesis doesn't have to mean a 24 hour revolution of the Earth. A day to any god can be whatever it wants it to be.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I once believed firmly in the creation story and the idea that a "day" in Genesis doesn't have to mean a 24 hour revolution of the Earth. A day to any god can be whatever it wants it to be.



Me too.  And, yes.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

I am past that now... I can no longer let myself assume (without any evidence) that the bible uses the word day but actually meant millions of years and skips over the majority of the history of the earth.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> ... I can no longer let myself assume (without any evidence) that the bible uses the word day but actually meant millions of years and skips over the majority of the history of the earth.



What is the story trying to say?  "God dun it."  The word "day" is not the point or the focus, but rather the creation of existence.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

I understand the argument.. and like I said, once believed as firmly in it as I assume you do.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I once believed firmly in the creation story and the idea that a "day" in Genesis doesn't have to mean a 24 hour revolution of the Earth. A day to any god can be whatever it wants it to be.



I tend to think a God wanting to get his message out through a book would use terms that meant exactly what his followers and possible followers would use in order to be understood as his followers currently understand.

There were no footnotes at the bottom of any page saying *To God, one day is equal to 1000 years

One day is one day. 7 days is a week.

God "could say" On the 7th Ostrich I rested. Explanation from the believers is that God did not rest on the 7th Ostrich, what he meant was on the 7th day he rested, God "could" use Ostrich as HIS way of saying day(He is God and we cannot understand what is in his mind)...and it "could" equal 100 or 1000 days......

Baloney, If God is rambling on in jargon that only he can understand there is no sense having any of it written down for us to try to figure out. A day is a day.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There were no footnotes at the bottom of any page saying *To God, one day is equal to 1000 years



It's in there.



bullethead said:


> One day is one day. 7 days is a week.



What is a day measured by?



bullethead said:


> God "could say" On the 7th Ostrich I rested. Explanation from the believers is that God did not rest on the 7th Ostrich, what he meant was on the 7th day he rested, God "could" use Ostrich as HIS way of saying day(He is God and we cannot understand what is in his mind)...and it "could" equal 100 or 1000 days......
> 
> Baloney, If God is rambling on in jargon that only he can understand there is no sense having any of it written down for us to try to figure out. A day is a day.



What does time mean?  Consider the phrase "it is time for x,y,z."

-It could mean that X,Y,Z happens at a specific time (nap at noon)
-it could mean that enough time has passed for X,Y, Z to occur (long day, need a nap)
 -it could mean that X,Y,Z is a result of actions taken which will now lead to other actions (bad kid needing a "time out" nap)
-It could be frustration that x,y,z has not occurred (I'm overdue for a nap)

That's 4 different interpretations of one word I dreamed up in about 10 seconds.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It's in there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It means that if I say I will see you tomorrow, you can bet I will show up within 24hours, not in 24,000 hours. It means when I order 1 day delivery, the item is on my porch the next day not 1000 years later. It means when I say this time one week from today... the day I am talking about is a Wednesday, 7 days from today, 168 hours from today,10,080 minutes from today.

You want to make your version complicated...that is your choice.
Any God worth his worship(yep I hold a God to God-like capabilities) would make his word so easily understandable that no one could possibly question it's meaning.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It means that if I say I will see you tomorrow, you can bet I will show up within 24hours, not in 24,000 hours. It means when I order 1 day delivery, the item is on my porch the next day not 1000 years later. It means when I say this time one week from today... the day I am talking about is a Wednesday, 7 days from today, 168 hours from today,10,080 minutes from today.



Ok, have it your way......there was no sun in days 1-4.  How was a day measured?



bullethead said:


> You want to make your version complicated...that is your choice.
> Any God worth his worship(yep I hold a God to God-like capabilities) would make his word so easily understandable that no one could possibly question it's meaning.



Ok.  It seems to me the author was simplifying a relatively complicated subject, and basically relying the message that "God dun it."  "Day" could have been "era"......"back in the day".........


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ok, have it your way......there was no sun in days 1-4.  How was a day measured?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.



Assuming the story is even remotely true, there were no people in days 1-4 either. So when telling the story by BOOK to people that read BOOKS , does it make any sense to say anything but EXACTLY what you want to get across and put it in the most simple of terms so that it can be easily absorbed and understood so that there is no question of what the precise meaning is?

If you were God and wanted to tell a human a story of how you created creation( remember you are full well aware of the mental capacity of humans and are well aware of the terms they use) would you tell about the first 4 days of creation in terms that humans use in order that they can fully understand those words in terms they use and are  familiar with  OR or would you chuck down some terms that only YOU are familiar with(because there was no Sun on those days?? are you kidding me??) and let the goofballs you are trying to tell your story to just guess and try to figure it out?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ok, have it your way......there was no sun in days 1-4.  How was a day measured?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  It seems to me the author was simplifying a relatively complicated subject, and basically relying the message that "God dun it."  "Day" could have been "era"......"back in the day".........



It could mean anything....
except it makes much more sense to mean EXACTLY what the true definition is in order to be easily understood.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Assuming the story is even remotely true, there were no people in days 1-4 either. So when telling the story by BOOK to people that read BOOKS , does it make any sense to say anything but EXACTLY what you want to get across and put it in the most simple of terms so that it can be easily absorbed and understood so that there is no question of what the precise meaning is?
> 
> If you were God and wanted to tell a human a story of how you created creation( remember you are full well aware of the mental capacity of humans and are well aware of the terms they use) would you tell about the first 4 days of creation in terms that humans use in order that they can fully understand those words in terms they use and are  familiar with  OR or would you chuck down some terms that only YOU are familiar with(because there was no Sun on those days?? are you kidding me??) and let the goofballs you are trying to tell your story to just guess and try to figure it out?



That's the point, isn't it bullet?  You are saying day means 24 hours, I am saying that in context it can't.

In the beginning of the universe, was the sun there, or did it form over time?  No, I'm not kidding, and you are making my point for me.  It doesn't fit into your narrative, so you are saying it "has to" mean 24 hours.  The sun, and planets, formed grandually over time.  Even in a literal context, Genesis' day 1-4 could not be 24 hour periods.  There wasn't hours at the time.

One other point to consider.....Jesus spoke in parables.  Kind-of putting a human spin on whatever moral he was trying to get across.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It could mean anything....
> except it makes much more sense to mean EXACTLY what the true definition is in order to be easily understood.



If you want to go that direction, let's consider the original text, and the various translations and interpretations of the word.....yom.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 10, 2013)

there is no doubt what the original writer meant to say....  He meant a normal 24 hour day.  How you want to perceive it is another issue, but for the writer, he meant a normal 24 hour day.

I have no issue with it that way. I really wonder why it took God 6 days to create everything. I wonder why He didn't do it in 1 second, or a minute... I mean why drag it out over 6 days?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 10, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> there is no doubt what the original writer meant to say....



There's been many books, classes, study done on that subject, so, there is clearly doubt of intent.  Perhaps not for you, or bullethead, but for me...yes, there is doubt.

So, the question remains.....how was a day measured without the sun?

And, I recon a god which can create the universe could do it fast or slow, it's just that the evidence doesn't really support the "fast" concept.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> There's been many books, classes, study done on that subject, so, there is clearly doubt of intent.  Perhaps not for you, or bullethead, but for me...yes, there is doubt.
> 
> So, the question remains.....how was a day measured without the sun?
> 
> And, I recon a god which can create the universe could do it fast or slow, it's just that the evidence doesn't really support the "fast" concept.



Because you don't want god to seem stupid.  So you do the same loopdey loops people do to rationalize omniscience and free will.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> There's been many books, classes, study done on that subject, so, there is clearly doubt of intent.  Perhaps not for you, or bullethead, but for me...yes, there is doubt.
> 
> So, the question remains.....how was a day measured without the sun?
> 
> And, I recon a god which can create the universe could do it fast or slow, it's just that the evidence doesn't really support the "fast" concept.



There is no doubt that the writer meant it to read as a literal sunset to sunset day.  The wording he used has never meant anything other than a sunset to sunset day.  Like I said, you may be confused on what the writer meant, but the writher knew exactly what he meant, and he wrote it with undeniable clarity.  The only questions that arise is if it really means what it says. If you use the literal wording, it is sunset to sunset.

Now about how the day was timed since there was no sun or moon is a different matter.  I don't think it is really a big sticking point as to the amount of time in a day.  Regardless of the origin of the light, it is the rotational speed of the earth that determines the length of the day, not the light source.  So I guess you should be asking how fast was the earth spinning at that time, not where was the light coming from.


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What other chemical reactions that were once thought impossible have happened in Space?



Fun to think about for sure


----------



## Thanatos (Jul 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> There will be those here that say we've got faith that what is published is "true." I agree, maybe a little. But what I see here is an example of things that we once think are impossible, being discovered through science. The believers here have told us that it's impossible to prove their god through science, so what we've got left to discover are the things that make their god less and less likely.



I see it the other way around and that is why it fascinates me. The more knowledge we gain of ourselves and our universe the more my faith grows.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That's the point, isn't it bullet?  You are saying day means 24 hours, I am saying that in context it can't.
> 
> In the beginning of the universe, was the sun there, or did it form over time?  No, I'm not kidding, and you are making my point for me.  It doesn't fit into your narrative, so you are saying it "has to" mean 24 hours.  The sun, and planets, formed grandually over time.  Even in a literal context, Genesis' day 1-4 could not be 24 hour periods.  There wasn't hours at the time.
> 
> One other point to consider.....Jesus spoke in parables.  Kind-of putting a human spin on whatever moral he was trying to get across.



JB,
God. God of the Bible. The God of Abraham. Having full knowledge that THIS very subject would be the center of discrepancy, do you think it would be possible for such a powerful entity to put it into terms that would be understandable?
It does not matter that at the time there was no Sun, No hours to count. The story was not written then as it happened. If God was telling Moses to write this stuff down I am sure he would have done it so that it was understandable to the current humans of the time. And for the sake of this discussion I will assume God could be capable of such a tiny feat since he created all of creation. Whether or not the days 1-4 had a sun or not would not be hard for a God to figure and put into "human" time so humans can understand it, relate to it, and not have to wonder if a day is a day in human terms or God terms.

The version you are trying to push only backs up what a mess of a man made works the Bible really is because even a decently brained human would write it in terms that humans would understand.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If you want to go that direction, let's consider the original text, and the various translations and interpretations of the word.....yom.



No one has the original text.
And since you are asking I do not think any of the text(original,translated or with the best wishes of it's most dedicated followers living and dead) shows any divine interaction. It is poor work for man(facts, accuracy, historical wise etc..) and awful work if a God wants to take credit for it.
If there are various things lost in translations and discrepancies it is because the work allows it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> He meant a normal 24 hour day.  How you want to perceive it is another issue, but for the writer, he meant a normal 24 hour day.



Ok.  It's not directly personal position for me, or how I want to percieve it. When I took the origins course mentioned earlier, the people who taught and developed the course had the same position as you.  Thier method was "start with the Bible, and use that to understand the science."  The approach led them to believe that the Earth was roughly 4,600 years old.  Personally, I never got into the Bible and tried to determine how old it was saying the Earth was.

A lot of that comes from a strict interpretation, or a literal approach to Genesis 1.   I am not gonna change your mind on that, and I really don't want to.  I just disagree, for many reasons, and I have articulated a few in this thread.



NE GA Pappy said:


> I have no issue with it that way. I really wonder why it took God 6 days to create everything. I wonder why He didn't do it in 1 second, or a minute... I mean why drag it out over 6 days?



I guess he could have done it however he wished.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> JB,
> God. God of the Bible. The God of Abraham. Having full knowledge that THIS very subject would be the center of discrepancy, do you think it would be possible for such a powerful entity to put it into terms that would be understandable?



I think they are.  You are trying to determine motive, where none is given.  You are also trying to specify the rules under which God would operate.  What was trying to be accomplished with the telling of the story.  Was it "how did it happen," or was it "why did it happen?"  Wouldn't you need to first understand the motive of the story before you understood the message?

Let's say the story is literal.  A God which can do that can do whatever he pleases, with or without your logical consent.  Now, assume the story is metaphorical discussion on man's emergence in creation in God's image (soul included).  As above, a God which can do that can do whatever he pleases with or without your logical consent.

If God exists, then it does not matter whether or not we consent ot his methods.

There is a lot more to this conversation than I am willing to get into here.  I recon I am on the "bad Christian" list enough already, and have zero interest in making that worse. I prefer the conversation about wacked out space chemistry, because this Genesis topic tends to become a "my faith is bigger than your faith" exercise amongst believers.  I hate that, and would prefer avoid it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I think they are.  You are trying to determine motive, where none is given.  You are also trying to specify the rules under which God would operate.  What was trying to be accomplished with the telling of the story.  Was it "how did it happen," or was it "why did it happen?"  Wouldn't you need to first understand the motive of the story before you understood the message?
> 
> Let's say the story is literal.  A God which can do that can do whatever he pleases, with or without your logical consent.  Now, assume the story is metaphorical discussion on man's emergence in creation in God's image (soul included).  As above, a God which can do that can do whatever he pleases with or without your logical consent.
> 
> ...



The core root of it all is some determine a God where none is given. 
The rest is as big a guess as anyone can think of.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2013)

Here is some more space chemistry:

http://news.yahoo.com/monster-star-baby-photos-captured-giant-telescope-110013506.html



> A giant radio telescope in Chile has captured amazing baby photos of what will eventually be a colossal star 11,000 light-years from Earth. Even more shocking: It's still growing, scientists say.
> 
> The giant star, which scientists billed as a "monster star," is forming inside a vast cloud of interstellar dust that has 500 times the mass of the sun. It was discovered by astronomers using the huge Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter array telescope, or ALMA, in Chile's high Atacama Desert.
> 
> ...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ok, have it your way......there was no sun in days 1-4.  How was a day measured?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  It seems to me the author was simplifying a relatively complicated subject, and basically relying the message that "God dun it."  "Day" could have been "era"......"back in the day".........



So why use the word day at all??? In "days" 1-4 the word day hadn't been thought of by any human brain... so DON'T CALL IT DAY.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So why use the word day at all??? In "days" 1-4 the word day hadn't been thought of by any human brain... so DON'T CALL IT DAY.



That might have worked, invent a word:

"......and there was evening, and there was morning, the first bak-a-lacka."

However, in metaphors, and in Jesus' parables, words we use and know are used.  I don't know why, but, if I were to try and invent words, the message would be a bit lost, I suppose.

Personally, I don't think the time frame is that important to the story.  I am very open to being wrong on that.  I just don't see that it matters.  Creation is proff of existence.  Whether done in a blink or in 13 billion years it really doesn't change the magnitude or magnificence of it all.

Now, honestly, if I could go back in time a day or two, I would have never opened this can of woms.  The thread was a cool topic without Genesis.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 11, 2013)

I didn't suggest invent words. Say this and this was created in 100,000 of your days.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I didn't suggest invent words. Say this and this was created in 100,000 of your days.



Psalms 23:



> 1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. 2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, 3 he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. 6 Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.



Is the valley of the shadow of death a real valley?  Is the author really walking?  Or is he referring to a state of being.

Is it a real rod and staff?



> 6 Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life,



Why didn't he say years?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 11, 2013)

DayS directly implies more than one. It doesn't directly imply 1 individual day. That didn't really work...

Maybe death has a shadow and a real valley... but probably not. I agree. There are countless literal uses of words... Why cause the confusion between the two? We've asked several times why this all powerful god didn't make himself 100% obvious. You don't like that. Fine, he wants us to  have faith. Why not make the book about him clear? That still leaves us with the choice to believe.. You don't like that either.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> DayS directly implies more than one. It doesn't directly imply 1 individual day. That didn't really work...



There was a more convenient term, years, or just "all my life," it did work.  



TripleXBullies said:


> Maybe death has a shadow and a real valley... but probably not. I agree. There are countless literal uses of words...



Probably isn't a rod and staff, probably isn't real oil involved, and God probably isn't preparing an actual table for David.




TripleXBullies said:


> Why cause the confusion between the two? We've asked several times why this all powerful god didn't make himself 100% obvious. You don't like that.



It's not that I like or don't like it.  Heck, man, I could be totally wrong on this one.  My point is that it doesn't matter, and I don't know why one way or the other.  Much like one other believer says he wonders why God didn't create it all in a blink of an eye......who knows.  It's just the way it is.



TripleXBullies said:


> Fine, he wants us to  have faith. Why not make the book about him clear? That still leaves us with the choice to believe.. You don't like that either.



I think the book is clear, or the point...."God dun it."

Again, it's not about like or don't like.  I could have another believer come in here, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Genesis story is intended to be literally interpretted, and I would say "ok, if that's the way it is, then that's the way it is."  I just currently do not see it as a literal telling of events.  I could be wrong, and just as content with the story, and my faith.....but, the greater point is that whether or not I am content, or whether or not you accept the story, has zero bearing on the reality of it.  Reality is what it is, regardless of our opinion on the matter.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 11, 2013)

You're right.. I say I like it or I don't like, but that's not really what I mean either. I mean the parts that make absolutely no sense at all, like day 1-7, make it unbelievable. In the literal sense of the term unbelievable. All of the days of my life is believable enough. Because dayS implies more than one day. Because there is too much that is (literally) unbelievable, I choose not to rely on the "god dun it." because if that was written in the bible, verbatim, it would be even worse. 

Likewise, your belief in the book also has zero bearing on the reality of it. My disbelief in the book has zero bearing on the reality of it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Likewise, your belief in the book also has zero bearing on the reality of it. My disbelief in the book has zero bearing on the reality of it.



Then we have found something to agree on. 

There was a South Park episode where the "wise" atheist otter speculated that believing in God might in itself indicate that God exists.....the other atheist otters killed him for it.....very funny episode, I think it's called "Go, God, Go."  All the atheist factions 500 years in the future fought over who had the "correct" science, and the correct answer to the "great question."


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 11, 2013)

I can 100% believe that.. Believing in any god indicates that he exists.  Even your god. The characteristics of not being bound by time and what not point toward what I understand to be an idea. And it absolutely exists if someone has the idea of it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> And it absolutely exists if someone has the idea of it.



Is "it" in this sentence the idea, or the fact?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 11, 2013)

The idea. Which is a fact, that there is the idea of your god. It could possibly all be factual, but there is no doubt and it can't be argued (I don't think) that there is the idea.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> The idea. Which is a fact, that there is the idea of your god. It could possibly all be factual, but there is no doubt and it can't be argued (I don't think) that there is the idea.



Ok, thanks for clarifying.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 11, 2013)

Something I thought about last night and again while reading this. What is the definition of a day? 

You could make arguments for the time between sunup and sundown, but what's the planetary, not human, definition. 

It is the rotational period of the body on which it is measured. As pure theory, let's say that a planet is ejected from its parent solar system that gave rise to it. It would still have a day, provided that it rotated on its axis, even though it had no daylight hours, if removed from the solar system. 

Further, the geologic record, in addition to providing details of creatures so great in size that their absence from the Bible casts enough doubt on their own, tells us that the rotational period of the earth has never been, and will never be, stable. Tidal markings in fossilized mud have shown that the earth, shortly after the moon's formation (which occurred on Day 4 if I remember correctly) and no earlier since the fossil record disappears with the theorized impact that created the moon, rotated once every 6 hours or so and has gradually increased in period as the orbit of the moon enlarged. So, if your basis for the bible is that the term day is literal, which measure is it? 

Is it the current model of 24 hours, the 6 hour model as shown by the fossil record, or somewhere in between since man didn't show up until we had a pretty close approximation to 24 hours? It's flexible, fluid, and open to interpretation. 

If God could communicate so clearly what his intent was, one day and assuming that any 1 of the possibilities is the only right answer, why wouldn't he just say it? Or is the assumption that he knows that his readers would know what it is based on their experience? How does that square with the fact that we are measuring the distance to the moon opening, and that our orbit is slowing down as a result, so that one day, in theory, could be 50 hours in a very distant future? 

The term day, a fundamental point of reference for everything relating to ages of people, dates of birth, holidays, and other events predicated on time can't be squared between the Bible and observable evidence. Therefore it either has to be a metaphor, or one or the other stories is incorrect. I know which one you guys will say is incorrect, and that's saying that science doesn't know what they're talking about, but their statements are based on observable fact and natural laws. 

For example, the speed of light is fixed at 186,000 miles per second. Thus a round trip to a fixed moon should take precisely the same time as does every other measurement. The problem is that it doesn't. It's been opening ever since we placed the mirror on the landing gear of Apollo 11 and have been bouncing light from it ever since. Now, that leads to the corollary that the orbit of the moon has always been increasing, and came from a starting point, ie. the same orbital position as the earth. It works just like playing a video backwards when watching an expanding explosion. You can see the origination point if you rewind far enough. It can further be concluded, since any impact large enough to knock the moon out of its orbit would have also showered the earth with debris, and there's no human record of such in cave paintings or other recorded accounts, that no such impact took place. Therefore, the moon has always been increasing its orbital path around the earth since it was created. 

My whole point is that even the term day, removed from the moon and the sun, is fluid. If God can so clearly communicate himself, then how can we have all temporal references based on a variable state?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 11, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If God can so clearly communicate himself, then how can we have all temporal references based on a variable state?



Because it is completely meaningless as to the point of the bible. The bible is not a scientific book on how or how long it took for the universe to be created.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Because it is completely meaningless as to the point of the bible.



^^^^Yes.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2013)

If the point of the Bible was so clear there would be no need for these discussions. The Bible is not an accurate scientific book, history book, language book, geography book or moral book. It is a collection of writings from various authors that span 1500 years and tells of what those authors think happened or want to happen. It is a conglomeration of some real people and some real places intertwined with some real events that have been embellished on in order to tell tales the authors wanted told. It is fable and folklore.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Because it is completely meaningless as to the point of the bible. The bible is not a scientific book on how or how long it took for the universe to be created.



Things like the days issue add to the idea that people long ago were fooled by other people because they didn't know better.


----------

