The missing day

[metherion]

Now, first off, this is not a thread to discuss whether the missing day thousands of years ago was found or not it is a valid argument; we all know it isn't.

Here's my thought.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that we can trust computers to find a tiny pair of events (a 23 hour 20 minute stoppage and a 40 minute stoppage) thousands of years ago but we supposedly can't look into the distant past at all not having been there?

Metherion

 

[laptoppop]

No. It is quite reasonable to accept repeatable science and reject the interpretational theories concerning the distant past which stand in contrast to the revelation of an all-knowing loving God, especially when there are other explanations completely compatible with Scripture.

The two things are not related.

 

[metherion]

Please forgive me for being dense, but it seems like a "You can't do it, you'll always be wrong, unless you're agreeing with us" type of stance, which would be hypocritical.

Or am I reading you wrong here?

Metherion

 

[Deamiter]

laptoppop -- how is the alleged finding of a missing day a thousand years ago any more "repeatable" science than finding a progressing nested hierarchy in geology?

Also, we can certainly make predictions about what we will find in the future (what fossils will be found where in what conditions for example). Is this not a form of repeating predicted observations?

Finally, I find it interesting that you reject what you call "interpretational theories" but make no mention of your own interpretation of scriptural revelation. Would it not be more honest to mention that you are rejecting a scientific interpretation of evidence over a theological interpretation of the Bible?

 

[KerrMetric]

All the missing day argument quite simply shows just how dumb some people are.

 

[laptoppop]

Please forgive me for being dense, but it seems like a "You can't do it, you'll always be wrong, unless you're agreeing with us" type of stance, which would be hypocritical.

Or am I reading you wrong here?

Metherion

Yes, you are reading me wrong. I am just arguing for a separation between observation and speculation and for the supremacy of divine revelation.

 

[metherion]

All the missing day argument quite simply shows just how dumb some people are.

That may be, but this entire thread is presuming the argument is false and is trying to look at some of the underlying thoughts which may or may not have been realized.

laptoppop:

I am just arguing for a separation between observation and speculation and for the supremacy of divine revelation.

So because the pattern of the sun has been observed, the idea that computers could extrapolate back is plausible (at least in theory, because, as we all know, it can't be done in this particular case), but because the origin of some species has never been observed, speculation back into what created them is implausible (in theory)?
And double so for evolution because a literal Genesis says otherwise?

Or am I still not quite getting it?

(I am making an effort to understand here, sorry if I am seeming quite dim.)

Metherion

 

[laptoppop]

laptoppop -- how is the alleged finding of a missing day a thousand years ago any more "repeatable" science than finding a progressing nested hierarchy in geology?

I've boxed myself in here -- lets see if I can dig out

I do not support the "lost day" falsehood. Perhaps I jumped too quickly into this.

I do want to enforce an understanding of the difference between evidence and speculation.

Also, we can certainly make predictions about what we will find in the future (what fossils will be found where in what conditions for example). Is this not a form of repeating predicted observations?

I see huge differences quantitatively and qualitatively between vague predictions based on things such as ecological zonation (which doesn't support evolution in any case -- and is consistent with the Flood), and repeated observations of interactions, such as chemical reactions.

Finally, I find it interesting that you reject what you call "interpretational theories" but make no mention of your own interpretation of scriptural revelation. Would it not be more honest to mention that you are rejecting a scientific interpretation of evidence over a theological interpretation of the Bible?

No. I see a congruity between the direct reading of Scripture and the physical evidence. God wrote the Scripture to communicate His Truth to man. It does not require turning the historical record into mythology. Doing so insults God. Take 100 people off the street and give them Genesis 1-12 to read. Ask how many would say that it teaches a global flood. It is the plain clear teaching of the Scriptures.

This is a common technique to try to claim that the Scriptures do not only teach one man, Adam, and a global flood. But the reality is that this is not a matter of private interpretation. The plain teaching is that God made one man, one woman, and caused a global flood. God made the Scriptures for our benefit, that we might know and understand Him and His Truth.

 

[Deamiter]

No. I see a congruity between the direct reading of Scripture and the physical evidence. God wrote the Scripture to communicate His Truth to man. It does not require turning the historical record into mythology. Doing so insults God. Take 100 people off the street and give them Genesis 1-12 to read. Ask how many would say that it teaches a global flood. It is the plain clear teaching of the Scriptures.

I've never understood this appeal to the "common man" as an acceptable method of scriptural interpretation. It's certainly not something I have EVER come across in my reading of Jewish and early church theologians! If I recall correctly, in the Jewish culture, people were not allowed to BEGIN to teach on scripture until they had reached 40 years and spent that time studying scriptures and writing about scriptures the whole time. Why we'd want to turn away from careful study to the average guy on the street is quite beyond me!

Further, don't you think such a reaction is probably strongly culturally conditioned? Do you claim that the common man in any culture would have the same reaction -- that the Bible teaches a historical global flood? It seems pretty clear to me that cultures full of oral tradition universally place much less value on details and accurate history and much more value on meaning and stories that convey the meaning in interesting ways. I've yet to see you address this point besides repeating that it would insult God to inspire scripture in a style different from that which is valued by your culture.

 

[Tiberius]

Now, first off, this is not a thread to discuss whether the missing day thousands of years ago was found or not it is a valid argument; we all know it isn't.

Simple fact is that no such missing day has ever been found by any qualified scientist.

Here's my thought.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that we can trust computers to find a tiny pair of events (a 23 hour 20 minute stoppage and a 40 minute stoppage) thousands of years ago but we supposedly can't look into the distant past at all not having been there?

Metherion

It is impossible to find evidence of the sun standing still, simply because there would be nothing to compare it too.

It's the same way that if you see a man walking down the street, you can't tell if he has been constantly walking or if he had stopped for a drink five minutes ago.

 

[Galle]

All the missing day argument quite simply shows just how dumb some people are.

I disagree. I think the missing day argument shows just how dishonest some people are. There are a lot of things that can reasonably be chalked up to ignorance or bad information. And there are a lot of things that can reasonably be attributed to stupidity or not thinking. But there are a few things that are so obviously wrong that no amount of believable ignorance or stupidity can explain, and the Missing Day argument is one of those.

If you did run a model of the solar system backwards, you could compare the results with old photographic plates, and if anomalies did arise, you could be sure that something was wrong somewhere. Or if your model produced results that obviously didn't happen (e.g. Venus careens off of Jupiter 800 years ago), then you could be sure that something was wrong somewhere. So what anomaly occurs in the Missing Day argument? What anomaly could occur? There are no time-tagged photographic plates from the era.

Coming to this conclusion takes about 15 seconds of thought; not a serious investment. Now I can accept that an uninterested person might hear this story and simply not think about it at all. But if someone is going to repeat the Missing Day story as a serious piece of support for their deeply-held beliefs, then either they have thought about it and decided to lie, or they haven't thought about it and thus have no reason whatsoever to think it accurate (in which case it's dishonest to repeat the story as accurate).

It's like the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument: there is no ignorance or stupidity deep enough to reasonably cover it and so you have no choice but to attribute it to dishonesty or insanity.