The guy is not claiming, for example, that the days are not 24 hours periods, as you claim, with the first one being the longest. Go back and read it again.
i'll play. from jonf's repsonse:
quote:
Good ol' Gerald Schroeder ...
is the author of randman's post. He's sort of a day-age creationist; he believes that each day of Genesis, going back in time, is exponentially longer. That is, the fist day was 7.75 billion years long, the second was 3.75 billion years long, and so on.
He is claiming they can both be 24 hour days and periods of time far, far longer due to the physics of how time is created within the universe
which is wrong. granted, yes, time DOES depend on the frame of reference of the observer. but as i said, i'm rather certain he has it backward. time would be going FASTER earlier in the universe (and towards its center).
Thus far, you have totally avoided the topic while simulataneously attempting to divert the topic to questions of your choosing.
uh. are you reading the same thread i am? i've addressed every one of your concerns, save for actually posting the lorentz equations.
Well, I am not taking the bait. Either deal with the physics
you call that physics? that's more like the ramblings of a madman.
or stay quiet and admit you don't know what the guy is talking about.
alright, let's play ball.
our galaxy is moving at about 300k/s away from the center of the universe. about 1/1000th the speed of light. here's the time dilation lorentz equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html
input the numbers yourself. as the velocity approaches the speed of light, time becomes more and more dilated, moving slower and slower. but 1/1000th the speed of light, the time period in still frame is approximately 1.000000500000375x the time in our frame.
so time at the center of the universe, the point of origin, is running FASTER, not slower. here's a dumbed-down explanation of why:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/time.html#gamma
the light has more distance to travel to maintain it's constant speed. but if that's not what he's talking about, i don't know what he is. perhaps you (or he) could produce one of the dozens of textbooks that produce this number that he mentions,
without indicating what it is.
Moreover, your point on "as" is petty and wrong since the whole use of "as" there is not to denote 1000 years, but to equate an indefinite period of very long time.
hat do you think the passage is trying to convey there?
uh. no. it denotes a simile. that's what "as" and "like" do in the english language. the passage isn;t even talking about actual lengths of time. it's talking about how great it is to be with god.
Also, your claim that the "days" prior to the creation of the sun must mean 24 hour periods is unsubtantiated.
what do you mean "unsubstantiated?" it's not unsubstantiated. it's VERY substantiated. there is light before the sun, according to the bible. look.
quote:
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
quote:
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
see? there's even plants before the sun:
quote:
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
have you even read genesis at all? look what god calls the darkness and the light:
quote:
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
so, you're basically arguing AGAINST the bible. the bible says the light was Day. and the dark was Night. it even uses those specific words. and these periods of lights and darks are simply not related to the sun and moon.
But considering we measure our "days" by the rotation of the earth, it seems nonsensical and quite arbitrary to me, to insist that prior to the earth rotating around the sun that somehow "day" must mean a 24 hour period.
try again. we measure our days according to CLOCKS. and before that, we measured days according to the sun going down, and the sun coming up, and its height in the sky. we've known the length of a day A LOT longer than we've known that the earth orbits the sun. so of course it seems arbitrary and nonsensical to you. you're reading it from a 21st century perspective. but the people who wrote the bible weren't stupid. the just didn't know some stuff we know now.
but they knew what a day was.
You seem, in fact, to leave no room for God to be speaking a mystery here.
because i don't think it's god speaking, and i don't think there's any mystery involved. it was written to EXPLAIN, not to mystify. and now we have a better explanation.
Also, the idea that this was a dominant creation-myth is countered by the idea that all the fictional stories, if fictional, could be derived from the true one.
the story present a solid dome in the sky, with water above it, protecting a flat earth in a sort of inside-out snowdome. the sun, moon, and stars are all in this solid object. knowing that, want to try your argument again?
the story is plainly consistent with every other culture around there. heck, even egypt has a similar worldview at around the same time.
Moreover, there is the assumption that the story was understood by the writers
you're assuming that people who wrote something 2600 years ago didn't understand what they wrote. even though it's consistent with every other text at that age, not to mention ones much, much older. in fact, the evidence is that genesis was quite antiquated even at the date of it's authorship.
it depicts a flat earth, and a solid metal dome in the sky that keeps out water. perhaps you're the one who doesn't understand what they wrote.
but if the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, they could easily have only thought they understood it, but not grasped it fully.
if. whenever you back a creationist into a hole here, that word always comes out. if. maybe. hypothetically...
if the writers were inspired by the holy spirit, the holy spirit got it wrong. and if the writers were inspired by the holy spirit, the holy spirit wasn't very creative or even up to date in his inspiration. and if the holy spirit is wrong, uncreative, and out of date, what good is his inspiration?
Certainly, Jesus' disciples did not always understand him, and the nature of prophetic language suggests that the prophet only "sees in part" and thus may not grasp the full meaning either.
genesis ≠ prophetic. it just isn't.
and the passage you imply is the only bit of paul's writing that i like. for now we see as though through a glass, darkly. even if he's referring to scientific understanding, which he's not, it would mean that the authors of the bible are capable of error. because they're looking at an incomplete understanding of god and his creation. which is exactly what we see.
so if you're accepting that maybe it was misunderstood, why are you arguing for a technicality of liquids?
especially when what you're comparing to IS NOT A LIQUID. it's a plasma. plasmas are not liquids.
The prophetic books of the Bible, including the Book of Revelation but also the Old Testament, illustrate this same point.
the old testament is not a book. it's closer to 39. depending if you count kings as one book or two, and samuel as one or two. and psalms as one or 5. although a good section of the library is prophetic in nature (the section called "prophets" by the way), the whole of it is not.
Uh, how could you have believed "this view" without even understanding it?
you seem to be the one who doesn't understand it. the view says that the first day is exponentially longer than the second, which is exponentially longer than the third, etc. this allows all of human existance to fit into day six, and day seven being the end (when god can finally rest). this makes genesis 1 the front-end for the ENTIRE bible.
this is very similar, if not the same view that your quote expressed. if it wasn't, you should have objected to jonf's reading of it.
You clearly admit you do not understand the science (physics)
no, i admitted that i was rusty. perhaps you don't understand what "clearly" means? it's just been a while since i thought about relativity. a liberal arts major will rot your math/physics brain.
And you also have not even grasped his basic contention, namely that the 6 days could be both 6 24-hour periods, and very long periods of time at the same time.
let's go back that lorentz equation. try plugging in 1/16billionth in to the t area. that's what he's asserting. that the time in the still frame, T is several billion times slower than the time in the moving frame, T
0 (us). what do you get? i get undefined.
just for kicks, try 1/2. .5. still undefined. know what? "The time will always be shortest as measured in its rest frame."
he's wrong. he has it backwards.
Care to get back on topic there and address his idea?
care to get back on topic and address this whole water thing? your entire point is offtopic, not to mention scientificially and theologically unsound
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2
