Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Only Six Days?
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 1 of 18 (297045)
03-21-2006 10:23 AM


*warning* this is mostly brainstorming and wishful thinking and in no way representative of the realities associated with the proposed changes in physics. */warning*
there is a common belief that all things that were created by god were created in the first six days.
this common belief is scripturally inaccurate.
let's spell this out. okay so all the stuff in whatever order in the first six days (depending on which chapter you prefer).
then. we have rain being created during noah's lifetime. also the rainbow is created. and then (stretch here) a weird god-man hybrid with (assumably) a penis but no Y chromosome (and thus no sin?).
the idea of no creation after the first six days is a huge assumption that is not supported by biblical evidence. also, it changes the very nature of the universe. for instance, the rainbow may seem like a very simple thing. however. if the rainbow did not exist before the flood, then the properties of water and possibly a great many properties of the universe were VERY different. the sky was probably not blue prior to the flood. if there were no rainbows, then it can be assumed that before the flood, water could not refract light. the sky is blue because water refracts light. the ocean is blue because it reflects the color of the sky. further, there is the question of whether this change with the creation of the rainbow was one of the properties of water, but perhaps also in the properties of light. was light a different entity before the flood? did it maybe travel faster with longer wavelengths thus perhaps giving a reason for why we can see stars in spite of their great distance and the short age of the universe? is this possible change in the wavelength of light responsible for the loss of telomeres in dna and thus a reduction in the age of living things and thus the size of things like reptiles which continue to grow with age (unlike mammals which tend to cease to grow).
a change such as this (while of supernatural origin) could be an explanation for many difficulties cause by creationist principles in the modern universe. and yet if it is denied as a new part of creation then it can never be used to explain.
so two questions here. any maybe i could get some assistance with the topic.
first. does the bible support more creation than 6 days. or was the original creation 'complete and perfect'.
second. what impacts could such later creation have on the universe and could these explain the vast changes in humanity and animals demonstrated in the fossil record and jive them with what is described in scripture? here i would be looking for physics expert type input on the daydreaming above in the thread.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-09-2006 03:39 PM
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-12-2006 02:45 PM
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-21-2006 11:17 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2006 10:45 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 03-21-2006 11:42 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 03-21-2006 7:30 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied
 Message 12 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 6:10 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 18 (297048)
03-21-2006 10:28 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
This message has been edited by AdminPD, 03-21-2006 10:29 AM

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 18 (297051)
03-21-2006 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by macaroniandcheese
03-21-2006 10:23 AM


the idea of no creation after the first six days is a huge assumption that is not supported by biblical evidence. also, it changes the very nature of the universe. for instance, the rainbow may seem like a very simple thing. however. if the rainbow did not exist before the flood, then the properties of water and possibly a great many properties of the universe were VERY different.
I like your idea but I just think that god could hold all the porperties of physics the same and also not have a rainbow appear and then make the rainbow appear without changing any of the properties of physics. I only think this because, technically, he could do anything and trying to put limits on how things must be if he did things this way takes all of his magic powers away
for example, blue light is the only light that is maintained to any great depth since red and yellow are of too short a wavelength to be maintained. same reason the blue casts the color of the sky.
Actually, red light has a longer wavelength than blue light and this length is what cases it to be refracted and/or absorbed before it makes it all the way throught the atmosphere. The shorter wavelength light, blue, can make it through the gaps, so to speak, that the longer wavelengths cannot.
ABE: i forgot to answer the questions...
does the bible support more creation than 6 days. or was the original creation 'complete and perfect'.
There seems to be things that were created after the original six days, like your rainbow example. What about non-physical things, like the covenants, you wouldn't have to make a covenant if it already existed, ya know?
what impacts could such later creation have on the universe and could these explain the vast changes in humanity and animals demonstrated in the fossil record and jive them with what is described in scripture?
Like I said, I don't think these changes MUST have been made but I guess they could used to suppot creationism.
This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 03-21-2006 09:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2006 10:23 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2006 11:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 4 of 18 (297059)
03-21-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
03-21-2006 10:45 AM


Actually, red light has a longer wavelength than blue light and this length is what cases it to be refracted and/or absorbed before it makes it all the way throught the atmosphere. The shorter wavelength light, blue, can make it through the gaps, so to speak, that the longer wavelengths cannot.
*dies*
i hate it when that happens. i guess i shouldn't make drunk posts.
I like your idea but I just think that god could hold all the porperties of physics the same and also not have a rainbow appear and then make the rainbow appear without changing any of the properties of physics. I only think this because, technically, he could do anything and trying to put limits on how things must be if he did things this way takes all of his magic powers away
the thing is, i think it's silly to create something that works a certain way and then make it work a different way. only someone with 'magic powers' would think to show off in that way. but my god does not have magic powers, rather control of everything. those with total control tend to not exercise it.
What about non-physical things, like the covenants, you wouldn't have to make a covenant if it already existed, ya know?
um. i suppose if you look at it in a weird metaphysical way like 'deep magic from the dawn of time'. i tend to look at it like a constitution... a piece of paper that tells you how things work.
but I guess they could used to suppot creationism.
it's an odd daydream to have, about things that could make the universe actually work the way they think it does. but i think the point i'm making is that for creationism to be right and work within a static universe (which i can't imagine god not designing) the universe would have to be completely upside down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2006 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2006 11:30 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 03-21-2006 11:34 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 18 (297063)
03-21-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by macaroniandcheese
03-21-2006 11:16 AM


i hate it when that happens. i guess i shouldn't make drunk posts.
hehe, I've made drunk posts too...doesn't beat the drunk phone call though
At least you weren't explaining how the sky was red
those with total control tend to not exercise it.
I agree and my god fits this description. Its like when people talk about omnipotetence and then say that if god can do everything then he is doing X too. But the way I see it, just because he can do something doesn't mean that he is doing something.
i tend to look at it like a constitution... a piece of paper that tells you how things work.
I see, so its not like the covenant was not there, its just that it is documented now.
but i think the point i'm making is that for creationism to be right and work within a static universe (which i can't imagine god not designing) the universe would have to be completely upside down.
Which is a reason for it being so obvious that it didn't work out that way. But, I just don't put it past god to be able to do something that we would conclude would have to change the enitre universe without actually having to change the entire universe, ya know, because of his magic powers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2006 11:16 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2006 5:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 18 (297064)
03-21-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by macaroniandcheese
03-21-2006 11:16 AM


Backwards
The shorter wavelength light, blue, can make it through the gaps, so to speak, that the longer wavelengths cannot.
IIRC, the above is exactly backwards. The shorter wavelengths, being shorter, are interfered with more and scattered a lot while the longer wave lengths wiggle through and are not scattered.
This results in the whole sky appearing to radiate the blue but only the sun radiating the rest. When there is a lot of atmosphere to get through during sunrise and sunset there is more scattering of even the longer wavelengths. Then we get red, yellow, orange over a wider area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2006 11:16 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2006 11:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 18 (297066)
03-21-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
03-21-2006 11:34 AM


Re: Backwards
IIRC, the above is exactly backwards. The shorter wavelengths, being shorter, are interfered with more and scattered a lot while the longer wave lengths wiggle through and are not scattered.
Yeah, I was wrong.
quote:
The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.
However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.
from here
thats kinda embarrasing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 03-21-2006 11:34 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2006 5:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 18 (297067)
03-21-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by macaroniandcheese
03-21-2006 10:23 AM


Perspectives
brennakimi writes:
if the rainbow did not exist before the flood, then the properties of water and possibly a great many properties of the universe were VERY different. the sky was probably not blue prior to the flood. if there were no rainbows, then it can be assumed that before the flood, water could not refract light. the sky is blue because water refracts light. the ocean is blue because it reflects the color of the sky. further, there is the question of whether this change with the creation of the rainbow was one of the properties of water, but perhaps also in the properties of light.
I read an interesting hypothesis by aChristian apologist concerning the nature of light.
Greg Koukl writes:
A young-universe creationist is in a very difficult spot. If he holds that God created the light in transit, he also has to hold that we have no way of knowing that anything further than 10,000 light years away actually exists. We can't see it. We're not seeing it; we're seeing an image that God created in transit. The light from it won't reach us for a billion years.
You see, the argument from young-earthers regarding star light is that God not only created the galaxies in deep space, but He also created all the light between that star and earth. This is why we can see them now even though the universe is young.
My question is, how do you know the stars are really there? You don't see the light of anything that existed. You're seeing an image created in transit of an event-- watch this-- that never took place.
If all we're seeing is an image that God created in transit, then the only way we're going to see the actual thing that exists is if we wait around another billion years for the light of the actual star to reach us. Who of us believes the Lord will tarry that long? Not a billion years. Which means we'll never see it, will we? We'll never see what God actually created, not the thing itself.
They also commented on light waves...
Greg Koukl,Stand To Reason website writes:
By the way, part of this discussion entails the notion that colors are merely physical wave lengths of light. The argument that colors are wave lengths that cause a chemical reaction in your eye that is physical is meant to argue against the notion that colors can exist or be apprehended in some kind of non- physical realm. My illustration that I gave was to make the point that colors are not wave lengths because it is possible to see color when there is no light. If you can see color when there is no light, then colors can't be light. They must be something different than light. They may be associated with light, but they must be different than light.
Here is the illustration I gave. Close your eyes and picture your mother. You are a child. She's in the kitchen washing dishes. Have you got the picture? What color dress is she wearing? What color is there? Some say red. Some say blue. Some say green or white. The point is, there is a color in your imagination. You can conjure up a color with your mind. Note I didn't say brain because your brain isn't conjuring up the color. Your mind is. How do I know it's not the brain? Because you cannot crack your brain open and ever find your mother in there wearing a certain color dress. What you are seeing is not something physical. If is was physical, it would occupy a physical location. You can't find it physically. She's not in there. Nor is the color in there. Not in your brain. It is in your mind. Therefore, it is not physical. It cannot be equated with brain activity.
I dunno if this adds to the six day deal or not....just thought it was an interesting perspective.
< !--UB
-->< !--UB
-->
< !--UE-->
This message has been edited by Phat, 03-21-2006 09:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2006 10:23 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 9 of 18 (297113)
03-21-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
03-21-2006 11:30 AM


I see, so its not like the covenant was not there, its just that it is documented now.
no. more like, it's not a thing to create, but something that was written down. i don't believe that it's some bizarre metaphysical thing that was formed into the universe, but a rule or a promise that god decided to tell us he would follow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2006 11:30 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 18 (297115)
03-21-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
03-21-2006 11:42 AM


Re: Backwards
thats kinda embarrasing
at least i had an excuse

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2006 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 11 of 18 (297131)
03-21-2006 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by macaroniandcheese
03-21-2006 10:23 AM


if there were no rainbows, then it can be assumed that before the flood, water could not refract light
Or there were no water droplets in the atmosphere maybe?
Seems pretty darn unlikely - but no more unlikely than water not refracting light

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2006 10:23 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 12 of 18 (355128)
10-08-2006 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by macaroniandcheese
03-21-2006 10:23 AM


we have rain being created during noah's lifetime. also the rainbow is created. and then (stretch here) a weird god-man hybrid with (assumably) a penis but no Y chromosome (and thus no sin?).
Uh. He did have a Y-Chromosome, and then when eve was created, it was removed and replaced with an X-Chromosome. How can you have a penis without a y-chromosome? That makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2006 10:23 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-08-2006 8:32 AM Christian7 has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 13 of 18 (355157)
10-08-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Christian7
10-08-2006 6:10 AM


i was referring to jesus. i understand that it makes no sense, that was my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 6:10 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 8:44 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 14 of 18 (355164)
10-08-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by macaroniandcheese
10-08-2006 8:32 AM


The holy spirit gave Jesus a y-chromosome. (A nice perfect one too.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-08-2006 8:32 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-08-2006 10:41 AM Christian7 has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 18 (355179)
10-08-2006 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Christian7
10-08-2006 8:44 AM


you've checked his dna?
demonstrate your evidence, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 8:44 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 1:08 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024