My View: modified Day-Age theory

[inchristalone221]

I have no theological objection to the days of creation lasting a whole lot longer than 24 hours. My reasoning is ultimately as follows:

1. Nothing in the Hebrew text actually rules this out. The phrase, "there was evening and there was morning, the first day" could be just as easily translated "there was chaos which progressed to order, the first era."

2. Time is relative to gravity. One fellow calculated that given the gravity of the Earth, exactly 10^17 seconds gone by in space would equal 6 days of Earth.

Let me clarify this: I do NOT believe in theistic evolution. There is no reason to believe it and it is theologically repugnant. I simply believe that we must not dogmatically hold to short-day s when they have no more textual support than day-age models (properly understood).

 

[PlanetTraveller]

I don't see how it can be proven that the 6 days of creation were six 24 hour days.

First off, the definition of a day is the completion of a full rotation of a planet's spin on its axis. A day is different depending on what planet you're on.

And though Earth is by far the most unique planet in our solar system, there is a high probability that Earth is not the only existing planet with life.

Technically a day is 23 hours and 56 minutes.

Plus scientists have evidence showing that the earth's rotation is slowing down (but at a rate much much slower than that of the continental drifts.)

During the age of the dinosaurs, a days was shorter because the earth spun faster. (Scientists calculated that during the age off the dinosaurs, there were about 400 days in a year.

 

[imind]

There is no reason to believe it and it is theologically repugnant.

why so?

 

[inchristalone221]

why so?

Theistic evolution demands that we abandon the existence of Adam and Eve. By implication, this eliminates original sin, which completely invalidates the gospel and the doctrines of grace.

 

[philadiddle]

Theistic evolution demands that we abandon the existence of Adam and Eve. By implication, this eliminates original sin, which completely invalidates the gospel and the doctrines of grace.

unless the story is a representation of the state we are in. sin still exists

 

[inchristalone221]

Yes, but without the existence of a literal Adam and Eve and original sin it is futile to attempt an explanation at the origin of passages that indicate that Adam's sin brought physical death into the world.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, but without the existence of a literal Adam and Eve and original sin it is futile to attempt an explanation at the origin of passages that indicate that Adam's sin brought physical death into the world.

Isn't belief in an old earth incompatible with the belief that there was no physical death before Adam? How did all those trilobites, dinosaurs and ammonites (to mention only a few examples) become extinct before Adam's creation?

 

[inchristalone221]

Isn't belief in an old earth incompatible with the belief that there was no physical death before Adam? How did all those trilobites, dinosaurs and ammonites (to mention only a few examples) become extinct before Adam's creation?

I hold a different idea of day-age theory. I believe that the Earth itself is young, but that the universe may be indeed very very old, since time is relative to gravity. There is strong evidence that trilobites and dinosaurs and other such things coexisted with humans.

 

[gluadys]

I hold a different idea of day-age theory. I believe that the Earth itself is young, but that the universe may be indeed very very old, since time is relative to gravity. There is strong evidence that trilobites and dinosaurs and other such things coexisted with humans.

Ah, day-age theory is usually connected with old-earth creationism. But I see you are rejecting an old earth. That is quite different. As far as this conversation goes, you are still a young-earth creationist no matter how old you think the universe is.

Now what is this "strong evidence" that long extinct species co-existed with humans? I take it you are not going to bring in long refuted examples such as Paluxy human with dino tracks or the sandal on the trilobite fossil.

 

[inchristalone221]

Ah, day-age theory is usually connected with old-earth creationism. But I see you are rejecting an old earth. That is quite different. As far as this conversation goes, you are still a young-earth creationist no matter how old you think the universe is.

Now what is this "strong evidence" that long extinct species co-existed with humans? I take it you are not going to bring in long refuted examples such as Paluxy human with dino tracks or the sandal on the trilobite fossil.

My immediate answer would be the Beowulf account. I would also cite Norse mythology and other mythological sources. I would also include the Leviathan and Behemoth chapters in the book of Job.

Human history records descriptions of such extinct creatures as the t-rex (Grendel), the Leviathan, and the Behemoth.

Also, it is impossible to actually say empirically that a thing is extinct, as science cannot verify a universally negative statement.

 

[gluadys]

My immediate answer would be the Beowulf account. I would also cite Norse mythology and other mythological sources. I would also include the Leviathan and Behemoth chapters in the book of Job.

Human history records descriptions of such extinct creatures as the t-rex (Grendel), the Leviathan, and the Behemoth.

Also, it is impossible to actually say empirically that a thing is extinct, as science cannot verify a universally negative statement.

Those examples are not from history; they are from literature. Literature is not scientific evidence because humans have active imaginations.

And although it is not possible to say empirically that a thing is extinct, one can say empirically that there has been no evidence of its existence in # thousand/million years.

 

[inchristalone221]

Active imaginations don't well explain the accurate depiction of the t-rex in both the beowulf account and the leviathan chapter.

 

[gluadys]

Active imaginations don't well explain the accurate depiction of the t-rex in both the beowulf account and the leviathan chapter.

It is a long time since I read Beowulf, so I will have to look that up. But I have read Job recently, and I see little similarity between the description of the sea-monster Leviathan and the land-dwelling T-rex.

 

[inchristalone221]

Well, there is a lot of interesting talk in scientific circles about the t-rex having limited underwater travel capabilities due to immense lungs and the ability to breath fire due to the intricate systems in his head.

 

[gluadys]

Well, there is a lot of interesting talk in scientific circles about the t-rex having limited underwater travel capabilities due to immense lungs and the ability to breath fire due to the intricate systems in his head.

What evidence is there that T-rex could breathe fire?

And limited underwater travel capabilities do not a sea-monster make. Leviathan is clearly an animal for whom the water is its natural dwelling place, not a tourist stop.

 

[ebia]

Active imaginations don't well explain the accurate depiction of the t-rex in both the beowulf account and the leviathan chapter.

If Beowulf is an accurate depication of a t-rex then I'm and aardvark. A candidate for FSTDT or Poe's Law?

 

[gluadys]

If Beowulf is an accurate depication of a t-rex then I'm and aardvark. A candidate for FSTDT or Poe's Law?

FSTDT? What's that?

 

[Donkeytron]

Well, there is a lot of interesting talk in scientific circles about the t-rex having limited underwater travel capabilities due to immense lungs and the ability to breath fire due to the intricate systems in his head.

I don't remember any T-Rex in beowulf. And the only place I've ever heard of a "discussion" about whether it could breathe fire is on the websites of the looniest of loony creationists, e.g. Kent Hovind.

 

[ebia]

FSTDT? What's that?

Fundie's say the darndest things

 

[gluadys]

Fundie's say the darndest things

Oh, how true!

Have you seen the thread in C&E that claims Noah was an extra-terrestrial who brought civilization to humanity?

http://www.christianforums.com/t2393393-the-adam-and-eve-and-evoultion.html