Did Joshua Stop the Sun?

[FEZZILLA]

2 Peter 3:8 also mentions this idea of 1,000 years is a day to the Lord, so there is merit to Psalm 90:1-4 in that this idea of time to us [humans] is a concept where God is not confined to linear time; He is yesterday, today, tomorrow - this is why He can and has numbered our days... He knows the end because He's already there just as He is here with us now in this moment. Given "time" as a framework in which creation exists, I believe God's plans are laid out according to His will and so when these scriptures speak to 1,000 years being a day this is a demonstration that God's will is not "slow" but rather within His perfect plan in which His promises are being (or will yet be) fulfilled. Looking at these texts within their contexts, we can see the intent is not do imbue us with a decoder ring by which we can translate God time to human time, but to reassure that His promises are not slow to be filled, they are in perfect timing with His plan - the vast majority of Bible commentary indicate this is the intent of the message.

I agree with the response from @FEZZILLA where to test whether the 1,000 yrs / day 'conversion' were true as it relates to the creation 'days', then surely we'd know more specifically how to follow the 4th commandment in observing the Sabbath. Exodus 8:20-11; however, makes it clear that the days of creation were normal-length days... imagine if a day was a billion years, what if you were born during this time and could never work and any attempt to get anything done meant breaking this commandment. Doesn't seem reasonable; however, if we think of God working for 6 days and setting aside one normal-length day to make it holy to the Lord, then that is definitely within the realm of human possibility.

As I see it:
- Creation is described in terms of days (yom)
- The days are separated by evening and morning (a concept we associate with a day)
- The 4th commandment indicates the days were days [again] and this provides the framework by when to observe the Sabbath
- God could have created everything in 6 days (He has the power, the wisdom, not confined to the laws of nature we observe today, etc...)

All of this heavily leans in favor of interpreting the days of creation as normal-length days, to me. Rather than look for "loopholes" to try to redefine, I [edit] look to see if the most apparent and logical answer is the one that best explains the meaning of the text.


Thank you for that clarification. I am betting you and I have different 'rules' by which we qualify a piece of evidence as fact. God is who wrote the 10 commandments on the stone tablets (not Moses) - this was directly from God to stone, given to Moses.

The same word yom is used in both the days of creation and 4th Commandment in the same context. God did not use evolution to create because the Bible teaches monotheism and evolution is pantheism. I do not see why God could not have created everything in 6 literal days. I do not see God as slow, weak and clumsy.

 

[Dale]

Wow. Evolutionists sure have you fooled. The vast majority of our mass fossil record is discovered in sedimentary rock. That cannot be denied. Sedimentary rock is formed exclusively by the powerful erosive force of water which rapidly buries living things in the sediments of the earth. This is how the rare process of fossilization occurs.

So scientists have been discovering dinos and mammals in sedimentary rock. They have also discovered marine fossils in all desert lands and at the peaks of all mountainous ranges -- all discovered in sedimentary rock. There are various whale species discovered in the Andes mountains -- again in sedimentary rock. This mass extinction of life is recorded in sedimentary rock which is not formed by firestorms but with water...lots of water!

So atheists reply and say geological uplifts caused by tectonic plates put marine fossils including large whales in the mountains. This lame excuse by evolutionists assumes that whale falls automatically produce whale fossils. But this assumption is refuted by science fact as the short video presentation proves.

No whale bones=no geological uplift tales. So sedimentary rock proves the Biblical Flood.

Fezzilla: "The vast majority of our mass fossil record is discovered in sedimentary rock."


What about fossils found in tar pits? Ever heard of the tar pits in Los Angeles?

Insect fossils are found in amber, solidified tree sap.

Fezzilla: "Sedimentary rock is formed exclusively by the powerful erosive force of water which rapidly buries living things in the sediments of the earth."

Most sedimentary rock is formed slowly, very slowly. Your "powerful erosive force" has nothing to do with it.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Fezzilla: "The vast majority of our mass fossil record is discovered in sedimentary rock."


What about fossils found in tar pits? Ever heard of the tar pits in Los Angeles?

Insect fossils are found in amber, solidified tree sap.

Fezzilla: "Sedimentary rock is formed exclusively by the powerful erosive force of water which rapidly buries living things in the sediments of the earth."

Most sedimentary rock is formed slowly, very slowly. Your "powerful erosive force" has nothing to do with it.

I think you might want to study geology before debating this topic. There is no slowness in what causes sedimentary rock. Water forms it. The actual physical process of fossilization may itself not happen quickly, but the rare conditions that made the fossil record do. And the vast majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rock. The dinos all died in a Flood and were rapidly buried in the sediments where they became fossils.

 

[NobleMouse]

I think you might want to study geology before debating this topic. There is no slowness in what causes sedimentary rock. Water forms it. The actual physical process of fossilization may itself not happen quickly, but the rare conditions that made the fossil record do. And the vast majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rock. The dinos all died in a Flood and were rapidly buried in the sediments where they became fossils.

Agreed, fossilization has to occur quickly - nature is too efficient for fossils to form slowly - when fossils are found with representation of even tissues and organs then this means that the creature was buried before other creatures could pick away at it and even before decomposition really had a chance to do it's thing. The most efficient way to do this (rapid burial) is flooding. With fossils being found all around the world, this heavily leans in favor of a global flood (and why shouldn't we expect to find such evidence, it is written in God's word). The flood described in Genesis is sufficient to explain the many layers of fossils found and this is only a problem for those employing naturalistic uniformitarian reasoning... as evidenced in the various threads of this forum.

 

[Dale]

"There's almost a billion atheists on the planet, so that means there is no god? "

Atheism and atheists do not hold a view in which there is a material reality of no God. Rather they hold a view in which there is nothing at all. There is nothing for them to objectively demonstrate for they don't believe in anything to begin with.

So no, we don't align with perception of atheists, because they don't actually claim to perceive anything.


To put it simply, atheism isn't a belief in something objectively real, it is a lack of belief in something objectively real. And we can't perceive something of their belief, if they don't believe in anything.

This is unlike Christianity, where we hold a position in which there is something, that being God. And in your case, you believe in a literal ressurection.

You are certainly correct in saying that atheism is the absence of belief and not a belief system.

For instance, Bertrand Russell was one of the most prominent atheists in the world for some years before his death in 1970. You might tend to assume that Russell believed that the human mind has disproved the existence of God. Actually, he rejected God and also rejected the existence of the human mind. According to Russell, we obviously have thoughts but there is no reason to posit a "mind" which contains them. So Russell believed in neither God nor soul nor even the human mind.

Modern philosophers are incredible rejectionists. When I was a student at Georgia Tech, I heard about an exchange between a student and a philosophy professor.

Student: "How do you know that you exist?"

Professor: "I don't know that I exist."

As one of my employers told me, "I signed up for a course in philosophy. I dropped it after the first class because it doesn't make any sense."

 

[Brightmoon]

I think you might want to study geology before debating this topic. There is no slowness in what causes sedimentary rock. Water forms it. The actual physical process of fossilization may itself not happen quickly, but the rare conditions that made the fossil record do. And the vast majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rock. The dinos all died in a Flood and were rapidly buried in the sediments where they became fossils.

. Sedimentary rocks can form from Chemical means . The “Fighting Dinosaurs “ were buried by a sandstorm. Concretions can form around an animal while it’s still alive . Ash falls aren’t formed by floods . Dinosaurs aren’t all found at the same level nor are the sediments from one process . I don’t accept a global Flood as a valid history as there’s no evidence of that.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm case my response was missed:

@FEZZILLA

It sounds like you are trying to argue that because scavengers exist, fossils should therefore not exist.

There are scavengers on land as well, such as vultures and birds that literally eat bones, like this one:

The presence of scavengers might make fossilization a more rare process, but there is no feasible way that scavengers could preclude all fossilization because scavengers do not scavenge all animals that die. Not even those that die under water.

Here for example, is a research paper discussing miocene to pliocene rapid burial, in which whales were burried in mass wasting and fossilized.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/838d/06b07cf99c2307de76e1c95596d1564085e1.pdf

"Diatomaceous deposits in the Miocene–Pliocene Pisco Formation contain abundant whales preserved in pristine condition (bones articulated or at least closely associated), in some cases including preserved baleen. The well-preserved whales indicate rapid burial. The 346 whales within ;1.5 km2 of surveyed surface were not buried as an event, but were distributed uninterrupted through an 80-m-thick sedimentary section. The diatomaceous sediment lacks repeating primary laminations, but instead is mostly massive, with irregular laminations and speckles. There is no evidence for bioturbation by invertebrates in the whale-bearing sediment. Current depositional models do not account for the volume of diatomaceous sediments or the taphonomic features of the whales. These taphonomic and sedimentary features suggest that rapid burial due to high diatom accumulation, in part by lateral advection into protected, shallow embayments, is responsible for the superb preservation of these whales, leading to a higher upper limit on phytoplankton accumulation rates than previously documented."

Now, someone not familiar with the geologic column might say "well, rapid burial under water, sounds like a global flood to me". However, upon closer examination, we see that these fossils are of late cenozoic strata, which most young earthers actually appear to believe is post-flood. But even if it were not post flood, it would continue to pose a problem because it makes up an exceptionally small and independent locality, temporally isolated from that which is below and above it, elsewhere (which basically means this would not have been a global flood, rather a very small flood that occurred in a relatively brief amount of time in an isolated area).

Beyond this, there are fossils also in sedimentary rock formed in terrestrial/land environments. Which you didnt appear to mention at all. We have nests and terrestrial burrows of things like dinosaurs and mammals. Obviously dinosaurs arent going to be building nests underwater. We also have tracks from land animals. There are terrestrial fossils throughout the geologic column. Which of course doesn't make any sense if it were all deposited by a flood (terrestrial animals shouldnt be walking around and building nests under water).

Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the fact that there are cores of strata with thin bands of ash layers throughout, demonstrating that indeed, fires and firestorms can and have been recorded in the geologic column. Particularly in places historically vegetated, evidence of widespread fires has been found in the rock record. This being a response to your first question, which you swiftly decided to change the subject on.

 

[FEZZILLA]

I'm case my response was missed:

@FEZZILLA

It sounds like you are trying to argue that because scavengers exist, fossils should therefore not exist.

There are scavengers on land as well, such as vultures and birds that literally eat bones, like this one:

The presence of scavengers might make fossilization a more rare process, but there is no feasible way that scavengers could preclude all fossilization because scavengers do not scavenge all animals that die. Not even those that die under water.

Here for example, is a research paper discussing miocene to pliocene rapid burial, in which whales were burried in mass wasting and fossilized.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/838d/06b07cf99c2307de76e1c95596d1564085e1.pdf

"Diatomaceous deposits in the Miocene–Pliocene Pisco Formation contain abundant whales preserved in pristine condition (bones articulated or at least closely associated), in some cases including preserved baleen. The well-preserved whales indicate rapid burial. The 346 whales within ;1.5 km2 of surveyed surface were not buried as an event, but were distributed uninterrupted through an 80-m-thick sedimentary section. The diatomaceous sediment lacks repeating primary laminations, but instead is mostly massive, with irregular laminations and speckles. There is no evidence for bioturbation by invertebrates in the whale-bearing sediment. Current depositional models do not account for the volume of diatomaceous sediments or the taphonomic features of the whales. These taphonomic and sedimentary features suggest that rapid burial due to high diatom accumulation, in part by lateral advection into protected, shallow embayments, is responsible for the superb preservation of these whales, leading to a higher upper limit on phytoplankton accumulation rates than previously documented."

Now, someone not familiar with the geologic column might say "well, rapid burial under water, sounds like a global flood to me". However, upon closer examination, we see that these fossils are of late cenozoic strata, which most young earthers actually appear to believe is post-flood. But even if it were not post flood, it would continue to pose a problem because it makes up an exceptionally small and independent locality, temporally isolated from that which is below and above it, elsewhere (which basically means this would not have been a global flood, rather a very small flood that occurred in a relatively brief amount of time in an isolated area).

Beyond this, there are fossils also in sedimentary rock formed in terrestrial/land environments. Which you didnt appear to mention at all. We have nests and terrestrial burrows of things like dinosaurs and mammals. Obviously dinosaurs arent going to be building nests underwater. We also have tracks from land animals. There are terrestrial fossils throughout the geologic column. Which of course doesn't make any sense if it were all deposited by a flood (terrestrial animals shouldnt be walking around and building nests under water).

Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the fact that there are cores of strata with thin bands of ash layers throughout, demonstrating that indeed, fires and firestorms can and have been recorded in the geologic column. Particularly in places historically vegetated, evidence of widespread fires has been found in the rock record. This being a response to your first question, which you swiftly decided to change the subject on.

The majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rock. But as my point stands: whale falls do not produce fossils since even the bones of the whales are devoured. Therefore it is impossible for geological uplifts to place whale fossils in mountainous regions.

 

[Brightmoon]

The majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rock. But as my point stands: whale falls do not produce fossils since even the bones of the whales are devoured. Therefore it is impossible for geological uplifts to place whale fossils in mountainous regions.

. I don’t think whales have been around long enough to find them in high mountains ( my opinion as im not as familiar with paleontology as I’d like to be ) but they do find them and some of their ancestors in Pakistan

 

[Brightmoon]

These are all representatives of extinct Families of whales. They’ve obviously been fleshed out in the pictures so your conjecture that we don’t find fossil whales is inaccurate. It’s irrelevant that they’re found on mountains as geological uplift is a separate geological process than fossilization

 

[FEZZILLA]

. I don’t think whales have been around long enough to find them in high mountains ( my opinion as im not as familiar with paleontology as I’d like to be ) but they do find them and their ancestors in Pakistan

Whale fossils all over the world. There are many whale fossils discovered in the Andes and, again, the uplift excuse atheists give don't work out. After seeing so much evidence for the Flood it is just foolish for people to dismiss it. Even evolutionists now accept the Flood, or a near global flood. In recent years they had to tone down the devastation of the asteroid extinction theory because (a) firestorms don't leave behind a fossil record in sedimentary rock, (b) too much heat and fire eliminates water, and (c) without accepting lots of flood water they simply do not have an explanation for the fossil record.

So evolutionists are changing the story all the time and then calling it an indisputable fact that proved the previous indisputable facts wrong. A new generation of atheists comes to power and they disprove the previous indisputable facts wrong and replace it with new indisputable facts. Its all about the egos of each new generation of atheists seeking fame and fortune by scoring the previous generation of atheists. When you have seen the story change as much as I have you know better than to believe any of it. Its all made up just-so stories.

 

[Brightmoon]

Whale fossils all over the world. There are many whale fossils discovered in the Andes and, again, the uplift excuse atheists give don't work out. After seeing so much evidence for the Flood it is just foolish for people to dismiss it. Even evolutionists now accept the Flood, or a near global flood. In recent years they had to tone down the devastation of the asteroid extinction theory because (a) firestorms don't leave behind a fossil record in sedimentary rock, (b) too much heat and fire eliminates water, and (c) without accepting lots of flood water they simply do not have an explanation for the fossil record.

So evolutionists are changing the story all the time and then calling it an indisputable fact that proved the previous indisputable facts wrong. A new generation of atheists comes to power and they disprove the previous indisputable facts wrong and replace it with new indisputable facts. Its all about the egos of each new generation of atheists seeking fame and fortune by scoring the previous generation of atheists. When you have seen the story change as much as I have you know better than to believe any of it. Its all made up just-so stories.

I’m not an atheist, I accept the evolution of life because scientists do have a lot of verifiable evidence for evolution. There is NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the global flood .
Talk about made up story . The real Flood was borrowed from a previous non Jewish religious myth and might be an exaggerated retelling of an ice dam breakage from the last ice age . In other words a large local flood

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolutionists as you call them do not accept a global flood . There’s no evidence for a global flood ever. this is a religious myth that not all religions share. It’s certainly not an historical event.

 

[NobleMouse]

View attachment 250540 View attachment 250541 View attachment 250542 View attachment 250543
These are all representatives of extinct Families of whales. They’ve obviously been fleshed out in the pictures so your conjecture that we don’t find fossil whales is inaccurate. It’s irrelevant that they’re found on mountains as geological uplift is a separate geological process than fossilization

It is humorous that this kind of evolution exclusively exists only in artist's renderings

 

[Brightmoon]

It is humorous that this kind of evolution exclusively exists only in artist's renderings

. Actually I could easily find pictures of the fossils but it’s easier for laymen to see what the animal looked like in a picture. The only thing that is conjecture is the coloring and some of the fat distributions. And we also have genetic , anatomical and biochemical evidence that whales are Artiodactyla like sheep, hippos and deer.
I’ve noticed for decades that creationists like to pretend that scientists don’t actually have this evidence. That lie is one of the reasons I’m not a creationist. If you have to lie to keep a belief then something is wrong with your belief

 

[NobleMouse]

I’m not an atheist, I accept the evolution of life because scientists do have a lot of verifiable evidence for evolution. There is NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the global flood .
Talk about made up story . The real Flood was borrowed from a previous non Jewish religious myth and might be an exaggerated retelling of an ice dam breakage from the last ice age . In other words a large local flood

This is not true. What this really is, is this: the majority of scientists which ascribe to uniformitarian geology do not see evidence for a global flood. There are; however, PhD scientists whose doctorate was in geology and do believe the is verifiable evidence for a global flood.

Clearly it is not an issue of evidence, but an issue of authority. Those who believe what is conventionally viewed under the principles of gradualism and uniformitarianism [of course] reject the idea of a global flood. Those who believe what God's word says (and it does indicate a global flood), [of course] see evidence for a global flood.

No one who ever came up with the modern theories of geology were around to see the flood of Noah's time... so obviously (I hope this is obvious to everyone here) nobody can say a global flood did not happen on the basis of direct observation. What I also hope is obvious is that no one has ever seen a global flood since the time of Noah, so the basis for accepting or rejecting the idea of a global flood is not on the basis of objective scientific observation, but a filtered view of what each of us chooses to believe. What we believe influences how we interpret evidence - bottom line.

Major regional floods have since happened numerous times since the flood of Noah's time and so if that was just another regional flood then God lied when He said he would not do it again. God does not lie... obviously.

 

[NobleMouse]

. Actually I could easily find pictures of the fossils but it’s easier for laymen to see what the animal looked like in a picture. The only thing that is conjecture is the coloring and some of the fat distributions. And we also have genetic , anatomical and biochemical evidence that whales are Artiodactyla like sheep, hippos and deer.
I’ve noticed for decades that creationists like to pretend that scientists don’t actually have this evidence. That lie is one of the reasons I’m not a creationist. If you have to lie to keep a belief then something is wrong with your belief

ACTUALLY...
No artist in the world can know exactly what some creature looked like from a fossil - it is literally almost always just an incomplete set of bone fragments. What really happens is artists are given direction on how to illustrate the creature by the scientists, who also did not see the animal when it was alive.

Sadly, it's even been documented where scientists have falsified whale fossils, such as adding appendages that didn't really exist, only to have a more complete skeleton found later showing the added appendage was a fraud:
Breaking: Leading Whale Fossils Faked | KGOV.com

Further, the term "creationist" doesn't even make sense - several hundred years ago a creationist would have just been called a "Christian" - adding the "creationist" distinction is just a segregation mechanism for those who don't want to believe God's word in favor of believing man's word about the past.

 

[Brightmoon]

Geologists who are creationists just ignore evidence that they are wrong and then lie about it. Simple hubris! Arrogance mixed with ignorance!

 

[Brightmoon]

All of the fossils in this whale graveyard are mostly complete. Could you as a layman,with obviously no anatomical knowledge, see that this is a whale as opposed to a mosasaur or an ichthyosaur? Could you even tell that the animal is on its back? Of course not! But a professional can ! This is why publications for laymen have pictures of what the animal looked like.

 

[Job 33:6]

The majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rock. But as my point stands: whale falls do not produce fossils since even the bones of the whales are devoured. Therefore it is impossible for geological uplifts to place whale fossils in mountainous regions.

Unfortunately not all whales bones (or all bones of any other species) are devoured. Your idea doesn't make any sense.