Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Only Six Days?
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

  
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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024