One answer to the dilemma of a seven day Creation vs Scientific views of creation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

What is a day off of earth? How can a day exist before the earth existed?

Good point and one to ponder.

Generally, though, it is believed that this refers to a period of approximately 86,400 seconds (a second being defined as is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the Cesium 133 atom. This is also dimensionally equivalent to 299,792,458 m along the axis of time).

a reply to: chr0naut

That's the modern definition of a day and it still revolves around trying to match the length to the earth turning in orbit.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

That's the modern definition of a day and it still revolves around trying to match the length to the earth turning in orbit.

That is why I used the word "approximately".

With all science there is an accepted margin of error. It is usually referenced in the early pages of most general science textbooks.

The Cesium 133 atomic oscillation could also not be a constant (but that would be entirely beside the point).

a reply to: chr0naut

What I'm saying is, why does the length of the day have to be anchored the length of time the earth turns in orbit?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

What I'm saying is, why does the length of the day have to be anchored the length of time the earth turns in orbit?

Because... why not, it is convenient.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's convenient for humans, because we live here. But why would it be convenient for god?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

It's convenient for humans, because we live here. But why would it be convenient for god?

'cause He thinks we're cute???

...and He was talking to us, telling us what He did, after all. He seemed quite chuffed about it (all that "and it was very good" stuff).

a reply to: chr0naut

Just seems odd that the creation of the universe (from the view of a singularity) comes out to approximately 6 days earth time. Sounds too convenient.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Just seems odd that the creation of the universe (from the view of a singularity) comes out to approximately 6 days earth time. Sounds too convenient.

But from many clues we know the universe is finite.

Stands to reason that there are specific values for things.

The fact that they have 'human' sized numbers is perhaps a reflection of many such antropocentricities about us.

The fact that the universe appears to be "made for us" is highly suspicious.

originally posted by: chr0naut
[

The fact that the universe appears to be "made for us" is highly suspicious.

Considering that 99.999999% of the universe including 2/3rds of the planet humans live on is hostile to them I think that is an understatement.

There wasn't a day before Earth according to Genesis. Earth was made on day one. Granted it talks about Earth being 'formless and void' at that point. Yet in never really explicitly says on what day it ceased to be formless and void .. one can infer on Day 3 since that's when Genesis has the Earth's oceans and dry land appear, and thriving plant life arise [on a frozen planet w/o sunshine].

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
[

The fact that the universe appears to be "made for us" is highly suspicious.

Considering that 99.999999% of the universe including 2/3rds of the planet humans live on is hostile to them I think that is an understatement.

Yes but those nasty places have created the conditions for our bio-bubble.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Myself, I think I'm a 'glass half full' kind of guy (at least when I'm not depressed with a migraine).

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes but those nasty places have created the conditions for our bio-bubble.

Those nasty places probably also created conditions for other bio-bubbles as well, meaning our planet isn't unique either.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes but those nasty places have created the conditions for our bio-bubble.

Those nasty places probably also created conditions for other bio-bubbles as well, meaning our planet isn't unique either.

"It would be an awful waste of space"!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes but those nasty places have created the conditions for our bio-bubble.

Those nasty places probably also created conditions for other bio-bubbles as well, meaning our planet isn't unique either.

"It would be an awful waste of space"!

So then humans being created in god's image is wrong since there is life elsewhere. Why would god favor one planet's life over another? He doesn't seem to favor anything else in the universe over anything else.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes but those nasty places have created the conditions for our bio-bubble.

Those nasty places probably also created conditions for other bio-bubbles as well, meaning our planet isn't unique either.

"It would be an awful waste of space"!

So then humans being created in god's image is wrong since there is life elsewhere. Why would god favor one planet's life over another? He doesn't seem to favor anything else in the universe over anything else.

Nowhere does it say we are the only ones created in his image.

Also the word "image" does leave latitude for variety. Consider a photograph, it may be described as an image of you but that doesn't make you a flat piece of paper adorned with colored chemicals on one side.

a reply to: chr0naut

Have you ever considered that "in his image" refers to life in general and not solely humans?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Have you ever considered that "in his image" refers to life in general and not solely humans?

The quote (from Genesis 1:26) "and God said, let [us] make man [in our] image, [after our] likeness" precludes that conclusion.

(Note: The words in the square brackets are not in the original Hebrew but are implied from the plural nature of the name of God, Elohim (the plurality is an honorific) and the personal sense of the words "make", "image" and "likeness").

a reply to: chr0naut

Then maybe they wrote it down wrong. We are talking about human scribes here. If the first scribe writes it wrong, all subsequent scribes are going to get it wrong when they copy that text. The Torah was written back when humans thought they were the center of the universe and above all life on the planet. Today, science shows us that isn't the case. So if you want to keep these old texts as valid, then clearly the original scribes made mistakes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Then maybe they wrote it down wrong. We are talking about human scribes here. If the first scribe writes it wrong, all subsequent scribes are going to get it wrong when they copy that text. The Torah was written back when humans thought they were the center of the universe and above all life on the planet. Today, science shows us that isn't the case. So if you want to keep these old texts as valid, then clearly the original scribes made mistakes.

The oldest book of the Bible is assumed to be the book of Job. In it God puts Job in his place by pointing out that mankind is not at the top of the tree.

Perhaps Charles Darwin was wrong with what he wrote in "The Origin of the Species". He was human too. And subsequent copyists have simply broadcast his errors. I mean, it was written back when the genome was unknown, right? As an argument, it is really fairly crappy just like your one which I was parodying. Let's both just drop this particular one and try something that is better reasoned and stronger, next time.