The Time Bubble Theory

[funyun]

"As I said earlier, it is irrelevant " (bible)
Say it all you want, don't really matter much.
"The Egyptians worked out an accurate 365-day calendar "
Glad you are impressed by them.
"Secondly, how could "the rotation", as u put it still be there if Earth wasn't made yet? "
You should realize the earth would not rotate till after it was made. Do you need me to tell you that?
"You don't calculate days from the rotation of the light source"
No, as the earth revolved we'd have the morn & eve, so?
"This is all elementary school-level stuff, Time"
It's you who seems to have a problem with it.

Wow. Upon reading this for the first time I have to admit I fell out of my chair laughing. You are kidding aren't u? You have to be. There's no way anyone could possibly be that stupid. I'm going to break down what u said and show everyone on this forum how there is no possible way that u aren't joking.

Say it all you want, don't really matter much.

First of all, your pathetic attempt at grammatical english leaves me speechless. Second, your brainwashing seems to go deeper than I had anticipated. You have my sympathies. Once again, the Bible is not a credible source of evidence.

Glad you are impressed by them.

You apparently missed the entire point of that paragraph. And frankly, yes, I am impressed by the fact they came up with an accurate 365 day calendar roughly 2,500 years b4 anyone else did. Of course, that entire last sentence was more than likely lost on u.

You should realize the earth would not rotate till after it was made. Do you need me to tell you that?

Finally, the first thing u have said that makes sense. Unfortunately, u didn't grasp that I had already said it, and that u saying it completely undermines the point u tried to make in the post I was repsonding to. Once again: I'm speechless.

Overview of the facts:
I'll go slow, so u understand.

1) The Earth revolves around the sun, the source of light and heat for our solar system.
2) The Earth rotates as it does so.
3) Each time it rotates it is called a (uh-oh, big word coming up) "rotation". Do u follow so far?
4) Each rotation is approximately 24 hours long, and believe it or not this is where we get the amount of time in a day. Thus 1 day = 1 rotation of the Earth.
5) This rotation causes the days on Earth to be split up into nighttime and daytime, nighttime when the part of the Earth u r on is turned away from the sun, and daytime when the part of Earth u r on is turned towards the sun.

This next part is key:
6) Were there to be light b4 the formation of the Earth (on the First Day, as it says in the Bible), then the First "Day" itself could not possible equal 1 Earth day, as the Earth was not made yet.
7) If there was "rotation" of this mythical light source u talked about, it would not cause there to be "Night" and "Day", as the light on one side would be equal to the light on the other side. For practical application of this, take a light bulb and slowly rotate it. Notice that light eminates equally on both sides, thus there is no light and darkness to distinguish night and day. Therefore, there could not possibly be days if there was no earth, even if there was a light source, as the roation of the Earth, and not of the light source, is where we get the measurement for days.

No, as the earth revolved we'd have the morn & eve, so?

This statement is particularly amusing as in it u refute your entire argument as well as the story of creation. You r absolutely right in this statement. Thus, on Day One, when there was NO EARTH, there could not POSSIBLY have been days or a morning or an evening; all things mentioned as happening on the First "Day".

It's you who seems to have a problem with it.

As I've deomonstarted above, I have no problem with it. It seems that u, on the otherhand, need to go back to 4th grade.

Your very existence is a blight on the lanscape of science and a mockery of common knowledge.

 

[time]

"Once again, the Bible is not a credible source of evidence"
Once again you spout your mantra. Why not shave your head, except for a big hair, and work the airports? Your chant could be worth some bucks!
"You apparently missed the entire point of that paragraph. And frankly, yes, I am impressed "
Frankly I may not have missed as much as you think
"Of course, that entire last sentence was more than likely lost on u."
Imagine that. Consider this, maybe it was more like 'flushed'.
"This rotation causes the days on Earth to be split up into nighttime and daytime, nighttime when the part of the Earth u r on is turned away from the sun, and daytime when the part of Earth u r on is turned towards the sun"
Speaking of lost! Try to imagine a cosmic light on one side of the sky, where you'd now find the sun. How would it be different. Now revolve the world around the light instead of the sun, stop name calling, and presto..am/pm
"Thus, on Day One, when there was NO EARTH"
So I thought I explained to you it wasn't until there was that it started rotating! Got it?
"If there was "rotation" of this mythical light source u talked about"
It was God's light He created not mine. No one suggested it did any rotating!
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.." Well what have we here? Chop suey? Sounds like the earth to me. Move over to verse 5 and we see what time it was. -"first day". So now we have earth, heaven, (minus sun of course) light, day and night. Bingo. You don't even have to go very deep in the bible to figure that out-the first few verses!
"Your very existence is a blight on the lanscape of science and a mockery of common knowledge"
Flattery will get you no where!

 

[Will13]

Your very existence is a blight on the lanscape of science and a mockery of common knowledge.

Your attitude and general debating abilities are "juvenile." You argue out of anger, and disrespect Time (and others) all throughout this thread. You appear to have intelligence, but your arrogance far outweighs your intelligence. IF you are as smart as I think you might be then why not share your knowledge more appropriately. Why not enlighten us instead of bashing us. IF you don't like what he has to say then stop debating. You only help carry on this nonsense for 14 pages.

 

[funyun]

Your attitude and general debating abilities are "juvenile." You argue out of anger, and disrespect Time (and others) all throughout this thread. You appear to have intelligence, but your arrogance far outweighs your intelligence. IF you are as smart as I think you might be then why not share your knowledge more appropriately. Why not enlighten us instead of bashing us. IF you don't like what he has to say then stop debating. You only help carry on this nonsense for 14 pages.

You must not have read the last 14 pages. You know, the ones where a lot of very smart ppl have tried to share knowledge with Time, but instead he decides not to listen at all.

You also must not have read any of Time's posts, where he repeatedly disrespects others.

I only argue out of anger and arrogance when someone starts a thread, asking for feedback, then proceeds to ignore all the feedback and make bad humor while criticizing the ppl he is debating with. After 14 pages, a lot of ppl r getting fed up with it, I know I am. So plz, read the 14 pages b4 u accuse me of carrying on the nonsense. I can assure u, if u read them, u will see Time makes not even the slightest attempt to look at the information myself and many others have presented to him.

 

[time]

"one we observed in 1998 was about 150 million light years distant"
OK so in a nutshell how was the distance determined?
"We've been able to watch this one now for nearly 20 years as the expanding gas shell from the supernova moves further away from the core of the supernova "
Yes I've heard of it. Now you think then this really happened 150, 000 years ago, right?
"If our time were that much "slower" than the rest of the universe"
The theory says that inside man's time sphere, time is what it is. But outside of the bubble, it is not going faster or slower, it just isn't a real factor. So the question is not at what speed any explosion, or other event appears to be happening. But whether they would take vast amounts of time to do so. If we were watching real time events in deep space we would simply need to calculate, according to this theory, how it would 'filter in' to our bubble where time is of essence.

 

[Will13]

You must not have read the last 14 pages. You know, the ones where a lot of very smart ppl have tried to share knowledge with Time, but instead he decides not to listen at all.

You also must not have read any of Time's posts, where he repeatedly disrespects others.

I only argue out of anger and arrogance when someone starts a thread, asking for feedback, then proceeds to ignore all the feedback and make bad humor while criticizing the ppl he is debating with. After 14 pages, a lot of ppl r getting fed up with it, I know I am. So plz, read the 14 pages b4 u accuse me of carrying on the nonsense. I can assure u, if u read them, u will see Time makes not even the slightest attempt to look at the information myself and many others have presented to him.

If he's not listening then why do you talk to him????? And I wasted lots of time reading those 14 pages. I'll waste no more though, i've said my thoughts. Don't be as lowly as he if you think he is so lowly with his remarks. You'll bring yourself down to the same level you are so against.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

"But his direction was to guide the Hebrews which included correcting the misconceptions that they picked up while living with the Egyptians"
so?

So if we don't understand what needed to be corrected, we won't understand what was done to correct it.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Guys,

time (arkathon) has concocted a piece of garbage that really cannot be discussed. As long as he states this we are in a bubble and everything else is outside, you cannot really refute it. It's so bizarre it doesn't bear discussing.

Basically he has subverted Humphrey's stupid 'white hole cosmology' argument - worded it himself to the level where it cannot be parsed - and VOILA - LUNACY!!

 

[time]

"Basically he has subverted Humphrey's stupid 'white hole cosmology' argument - worded it himself to the level where it cannot be parsed - and VOILA - LUNACY!!"
Never heard of Humphrey! (except at a forum where someone I think mentioned him in passing). I don't know what a white hole is. So I guess your theory at least here is falsified! Parced? Tough, if you can't parce it. Lastly, cap, as far as lunacy goes, how big would you say the little speck was that the big bang started from? You know, the one some poor folks think blew out the sun, moon, and stars, out it's own 'hole'!

 

[time]

"So if we don't understand what needed to be corrected, we won't understand what was done to correct it"
Sounds reasonable. What is it you think needs correction anyhow? Perhaps if you let us know we can understand what needs to be done to correct it!

 

[funyun]

If he's not listening then why do you talk to him????? And I wasted lots of time reading those 14 pages. I'll waste no more though, i've said my thoughts. Don't be as lowly as he if you think he is so lowly with his remarks. You'll bring yourself down to the same level you are so against.

You're absolutely right. After seeing that he won't listen to reason I've decided there's no use in arguing anymore. And I don't need self-righteouss lectures on how to act over a computer. The reason I said things as I did was in order to make a point regarding a parellel between nonsenical ranting and fundamentalist thought. If I offended u, sorry, but he was taking shots at others on the forum and someone needed to shut him up. Apparently, he can't be.

My final comments to Time:

It was God's light He created not mine. No one suggested it did any rotating!
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.." Well what have we here? Chop suey? Sounds like the earth to me. Move over to verse 5 and we see what time it was. -"first day". So now we have earth, heaven, (minus sun of course) light, day and night. Bingo. You don't even have to go very deep in the bible to figure that out-the first few verses!

This is taken from
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvGene.html

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Definition of Void, from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=void:
Containing no matter; empty.
Not occupied; unfilled.

Something that has no matter or is empty could not rotate, as rotation is a by-product of the swirling gases that condensed to form the earth. In 1:9 and 1:10, god apparently gives form to the void, which means that the Earth wouldn't start rotating until the Third Day. Observe:

9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

You'll notice the sun and the other planets all rotate in the same direction, an indication they formed out of the same gaseous clouds. This means that the sun and the moon and the planets could not have been formed after the Earth, as the Bible says.

Source:
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/StarFAQ1.htm#q26

 

[Aggie]

Now, yes. Then, God had made the light before the sun, so the sun was not the measure, as it is now of a day. This created light served the purpose for the few days or so befoe the sun was made. As the earth revolved, the sunrise would have been the time when it rotated into the light. Evening, as now, when it started to face the other way. As far as some atomic process needed, since He made the thing to start with, I'm sure the cosmic light would have been fortified with all the atomic vitamins that were needed! After all I don't think He's dumb.

This is the sort of thing that I'm talking about when I say that you can't take Genesis 1 literally. you're already using the words "day" and "night" to mean something completely different from the way that they are used in every language that's ever existed. Day does not ONLY mean light, since even when you're at an airport at 1 am that's as brightly lit as if it were 1 pm, you still call that night. Day refers SPECIFICALLY to the period of time when the earth is lit by the sun.

You are now using a completely different definition of day from the meaning used by any language. I don't have a problem with you doing that, but you should admit that's what you're doing because it's one of several examples of it not being possible to interpret all of Genesis literally.

It's also quite clear that you haven't read the thread I linked to. Please read it, and if you have questions afterwards I'll listen to them. In case you've forgotten where it is, it's here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1803739#post1803739

 

[time]

"Something that has no matter or is empty could not rotate"
'Not occupied' was one of your definitions. (no matter? whats water? Even if you don't like water as matter, unless it was floating, it must have sat on something? no?)
"In 1:9 and 1:10, god apparently gives form to the void"
Doesn't say that. It talks about the seas, but we've already had a morning and an evening, so why try to paint God as a liar?
"You'll notice the sun and the other planets all rotate in the same direction, an indication they formed out of the same gaseous clouds"
Why would I take rotations of planets as an indication that the One that had just made them could not do it just the way He said? This seems to me to be taking some thin scientific assumption, and trying to clobber the Almighty with it! Gas--yes, that's about all there is to that little snippet of supposed reasoning. (Shame your last post was so pitiful, but I'll give you a c- for effort.) By the way, the kind of 'help' I was looking for was not lame doubts about the Bible, or God, but some idea why maybe the theory on time was fatally flawed, and I needed to chuck it. I don't need any proof of Jesus myself. I can respect the sacrifice Him and His Dad made in coming down here to our sad ol world to save it. I'll believe to the end of the world regardless of what is said. I know God made the world, and everything like He said. The only reason I would like to have a theory to stand against the old earthers/evolutionists types, is so I could maybe convince others who need some scientific sounding ideas.

 

[time]

"Day refers SPECIFICALLY to the period of time when the earth is lit by the sun."
I just went over this for someone. Before the sun was there, replace it with a big light God made, imagine it's in the same spot. The world will act as it now does, the sunlight being replaced with the big light instead. Same principle. When the earth is turned away from the light, it's night.
"and if you have questions afterwards I'll listen to them"
The problem you seem to have in the link is that you think chapter 2 is another account. Right at the start of chap 2 it says they were 'finished'! (heaven and the earth and all the host of them)
Now, that's where we are. In verse 4, we go into the generations, or history of it. What was done. Then He gets into setting the scene of what was finished.
"This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. When the LORD God made the heavens and the earth, " The New Living Translation
(http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=2&verse=4#Ge2_4)
"With regard to the critical device of making this chapter to be a variant, contradictory account of the creation revealed in Gen. 1, the blunt words of Leupold are especially appropriate:

"It is just as unlikely as can be that the author (of Genesis) should have been such a dunce as to set down at the very outset two mutually exclusive records of creation ... This critical claim comes very close to absurdity."F5
What one finds in Gen. 2, therefore, are the supplementary facts essential for a proper evaluation of Gen. 3. The word "and," (Genesis 2:5), is not to be taken in the same sense of "next," meaning the next things God did, but rather, "in the sense of a loose `also,' without thought of time sequence."F6
---
The word "day" sometimes signifies an indefinite time (Genesis 2:4; Isaiah 22:5; Hebrews 3:8, etc.). In Job 3:1 it denotes a birthday, and in Isaiah 2:12, Acts 17:31, and 2 Timothy 1:18, the great day of final judgment.
So thats some thoughts from commentaries. Basically you have to accept this not as an opposing version, but of zooming in, and setting the scene, and fleshing out some details. If you don't you might as well forget it.

 

[Aggie]

So thats some thoughts from commentaries. Basically you have to accept this not as an opposing version, but of zooming in, and setting the scene, and fleshing out some details. If you don't you might as well forget it.

OK, it seems you don't understand what I'm talking about here, so I'll go into more detail about this. I'm going to use the NKJV, because the New Living Translation has some of the same problems as the NIV. KJV and NKJV are the only two that provide an unaltered translation, which is why they were the only two versions were were allowed to use at the Christian high school I went to for 11th grade.

I agree that Genesis 2 is backing up, and giving a slightly different account of the same events described in Genesis 1. That's not the problem.

Genesis 2:4-6 sets the scene before man was created. Here it is:

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord god made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before herb of the field had grown. for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground, but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

OK, so that's the setting. It's before plants were created. Here's what happens in that setting:

And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Hadn't God already made plants by the time he was creating humans? Apparently not, since that's what he makes next in verses 8 and 9.

And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the middle of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It is clear from Genesis 2: 4-6 that the setting is for man's creation is before there were plants. We are given an account of plants that is AFTER man's creation. Saying that these two verses are not descrbining events in chronological order is already a stange interpretation of this passage, but Genesis 2: 5 makes it clear that the more obvious interpetation here is correct. Genesis 2: 9 cannot be interpreted to be describing something that existed BEFORE man, because it's clear from Genesis 2: 5 that plants did not exist yet when man was created.

In addition, it's not until Adam had been around for a while, and had already recieved his instructions from God about what he trees he could eat from, that God created the rest of the animals. That's not until verse 19, and it does not begin with the word "and" that you have been claiming to signify a break in the chronological order.

I really recommend that you use either the KJV or the NKJV if you want to look at this, because a lot of other versions alter the text to hide this contradiction. The NIV, for example, makes it sound as though these verses were describing something God had already made, but that's not in the original text.

As I'm sure you're aware, this is different from the order in which Genesis 1 describes these things being created. The way that I dealt with this when I was a Christian was that the creation of each of these things was a process rather than a singe event: for example, what Adam originally came from wasn't alive before plants were created (as described in Genesis 2), but Adam's creation was not finished until after all of the other animals had also been created (as described in Genesis 1).

I have been aware for a long time that the word "day" or "yom" often refers to something other than 24 hours, which you also seem to recognize now. I also was surprised by something in Psalm 104: 29 and 30, talking about what God does to animals:

You hide your face, they are troubled;
You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.
you send forth their spirit, they are created;
And you renew the face of the earth.

The word create is ONLY used in the Bible for God making something completely new. In other words, an animal is only "created" if it's a species of animal that had never existed before. But what was creation renewing? Did the earth deteriorate so much in its first six days that God was creating new species of animals to replace ones that had already died out?

In order for creation to be replacing something, there has to have been enough time beforehand for the previous generation to disappear--something like what's described in Ecclesiastes 1:4. Together with "day" sometims referring to an indeterminate length of time, this has led me to believe that each "day" in Genesis 1 was a lot longer than 24 hours.

As I said before, man's creation must have been an ongoing process that lasted through most of creation. If creation was something that lasted millions of years, man's creation lasted throughout this period of time, starting with nonliving materials before the first plants.

Before I knew as much about science as I do now, I used to have some scientific doubts abut evolution, but I believed it because of the way creationism contradicts the Bible.

 

[time]

and there was no man to till the ground, but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

So I think you are looking at this as some kind of exact order in Chap 2. I don't look at it like that. We're going over stuff. Seems like one of the main things is explaining Eve here.

We are given an account of plants that is AFTER man's creation. Saying that these two verses are not descrbining events in chronological order is already a stange interpretation of this passage

I don't really think it is. We're just going from a pan view to some zoom shots here and there. If you want specs, look at chap 1.

it's not until Adam had been around for a while, and had already recieved his instructions from God about what he trees he could eat from, that God created the rest of the animals. That's not until verse 19

So I guess you cracked it. Chap 2 is not in chron order.

As I'm sure you're aware, this is different from the order in which Genesis 1 describes these things being created

As you discovered chap 2 isn't the order, it's the lowdown.

surprised by something in Psalm 104: 29 and 30, talking about what God does to animals:

Yes we'll see our old pets in heaven, as well as lots of other animals.

was creating new species of animals to replace ones that had already died out?

the main creation was in chap 1, but hey, He's not dead He could still do a little here or there if needed, no?

The word create is ONLY used in the Bible for God making something completely new. In other words, an animal is only "created" if it's a species of animal that had never existed before. But what was creation renewing?

You may be reading too much into this (trying to build a case for something else?)

this has led me to believe that each "day" in Genesis 1 was a lot longer than 24 hours.

Well morning and evening was a day. Most of the bible is the same. If you hang on the few exceptions and try to override the plain timetable of the 7 days, you get away from something called the 'preponderance of the scriptures'. This is where you need to take the whole bible in context, and not pick out things that seem to be possibly unclear. What if someone said Jesus was not dead 3 days, and nights, but millions of years? Or that the sun stood still in the sky for a battle, not for a portion of the one day, but maybe thousands of years etc.

Before I knew as much about science as I do now, I used to have some scientific doubts abut evolution, but I believed it because of the way creationism contradicts the Bible

Science seems a big reason a lot of people try to reinvent the Genesis week. Many seem to think this will allow them to keep some remmnant of faith in God, because they believe the science. (not that you do ) To each his own. For me, I have nothing to hide from science falsely so called. I do not have common ancestors with flys and cockcroaches! I don't believe God needs to be made a liar, or apologized for, nor the bible disbelieved. Science that goes against Him is a dragon needing to be slain and fought. (not cowered from and appeased)

 

[SanDiegoAtheist]

"one we observed in 1998 was about 150 million light years distant"
OK so in a nutshell how was the distance determined?

For something that distant (essentially, as far as we're concerned, too far away to get a parallax fix upon), the primary method would be the amount of red-shift in the light spectrum we recieve. However, we CAN determine, with less accuracy, roughly (within a degree of magnitude or so) how far away such a source is simply by the intensity of the source, and the intensity of background sources in the area we're observing. We have enough resolution to determine the 1998 source was in a distant galaxy, and brightness comparison with other galaxies gives us a double check on the distance.

However, for closer sources (such as sources within a few hundred to a few thousand light years), we can verify that red-shift calculations are accurate by measuring the parallax distance - essentially trigonometry (and as our instruments become better, we keep pushing the distance we can measure accurately by parallax out further). To date, the red-shift predictions match the parallax determinations.

"We've been able to watch this one now for nearly 20 years as the expanding gas shell from the supernova moves further away from the core of the supernova "
Yes I've heard of it. Now you think then this really happened 150, 000 years ago, right?

Yes I do. Just as I think the 1998 supernova happened approximately 150 million years ago (from our frame of reference). So far, I've seen no reason to doubt modern physics, and as, as far as I can see, your "time-bubble" theory can't account for the apparent constancy of "c" (and the consequent matches we see when we measure distant stars, galaxies, and other stellar objects by differing methods such as doppler shifting of light, luminescence, and parallax), nor can your thoery provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER other than the fact that you like it because it might make possible a "young-earth" (which is blown out of the water by many other arguments altogether ignoring the cosmological ones).

"If our time were that much "slower" than the rest of the universe"
The theory says that inside man's time sphere, time is what it is. But outside of the bubble, it is not going faster or slower, it just isn't a real factor. So the question is not at what speed any explosion, or other event appears to be happening. But whether they would take vast amounts of time to do so. If we were watching real time events in deep space we would simply need to calculate, according to this theory, how it would 'filter in' to our bubble where time is of essence.

And, oddly enough, the "not a real factor" time seems to match EXACTLY what we would expect if time and "c" are constants throughout the universe (with the minor differences caused by relativity). One hell of a coincidence, no? Omphalos argument anyone?

IF "time" outside of local space behaved differently than in our local space, I'd expect it to be consistent. If our predictions state that a supernova most likely releases extremely high energy neutrinos a few hours to a day or two before the supernova actually explodes, and we observe such to happen (AFTER the prediction was made, mind you - not before), it is either that:

a) time outside of local space DOES match our local space within a very close tolerance, or

b) God is playing with time such that (a) APPEARS to be true - in other words, God is providing false evidence which any God worthy of the name would KNOW would be taken as false evidence (Omphalos).

If time outside of local space either behaves differently, or is not a factor, we should expect that in general, any observations that we make should NOT be able to be related to specific time-frames. We should see either random or nonexistant correlations (if time is not a factor outside local area), or we should see correlations which disagree strongly with our predictions (if time is a factor, but sped up, or slown down outside our local area).

Where, exactly (or even close to exactly) does your "theory" place the edge of this "time-bubble" - and WHY? What evidence do you have for it? I've listed several consequences to your "time-bubble" that SHOULD occur (ie, non-time-bound correlations of cosmic phenomenon outside the "bubble" or cosmic phenomenon outside the "bubble" that disagree strongly with predicted behavior based on OUR measurements from within the "bubble"), and yet, none of them are seen to occur.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

 

[Aggie]

Time, I'd just like to summarize what you've concluded from our conversation about Genesis 1 and 2:

"Day" and "Night" do not refer to day and night in the meaning by which they are normally defined, but a different meaning used nowhere else that involves the earth being illuminated by a source of light that predated the sun, and of which there is now not a shred of evidence.

The Hebrew word "yom", which is the word used for "day" in Genesis 1 and 2 (when referring to the days on which things were made) sometimes refers to an indeterminate length of time other than 24 hours.

Some portions of the Genesis creation story do not describe events in the order in which they actually ocurred.

God is still creating new species of animals now. Either that, or "create" can refer to an animal that wasn't completely new, but merely the descendent of an existing one. Those are the only two ways creation could still be ocurring.

I agree that God is still creating new animals now, because this has been observed as a product of evolution in which a new species splits off from an existing one. Some examples of this are described here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html . This is the only process by which animals have ever been seen to be created in the human era. If He were creating them out of nothing in our current time, spontaneous generation would not have been abandoned in the way that it was.

If you are willing to say that the Bible uses word "create" for something like this that God is doing in current times, why do you not think it can be used for the creation in Genesis 1 and 2? 6 yoms could have been billions of years, which is long enough for single cells to evolve into the world's current population, and you've already admitted that the Bible's creation story may not be written in chronological order.

It would not be any more of a stretch than the re-interpetation you've already done just to reconcile the Bible with itself.

 

[lucaspa]

Time, I'd just like to summarize what you've concluded from our conversation about Genesis 1 and 2:

"Day" and "Night" do not refer to day and night in the meaning by which they are normally defined, but a different meaning used nowhere else that involves the earth being illuminated by a source of light that predated the sun, and of which there is now not a shred of evidence.

The Hebrew word "yom", which is the word used for "day" in Genesis 1 and 2 (when referring to the days on which things were made) sometimes refers to an indeterminate length of time other than 24 hours.

Aggie, I think the authors did intend to mean a 24 hour day.
1. That's why they put the "evening and morning" in those days before the creation of the sun. To make sure the reader understood it was a regular day and not the indeterminant length of time.
2. The authors deliberately tie the creation's 6 days and day of rest to the 6 days of work and the Sabbath. They can't do this if you have indefinite amounts of time for each "day".

I agree that God is still creating new animals now, because this has been observed as a product of evolution in which a new species splits off from an existing one. Some examples of this are described here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html . This is the only process by which animals have ever been seen to be created in the human era. If He were creating them out of nothing in our current time, spontaneous generation would not have been abandoned in the way that it was.

Or rather than spontaneous generation people would go out into the fields one day and see a brand new species of deer browsing the grass.

If you are willing to say that the Bible uses word "create" for something like this that God is doing in current times, why do you not think it can be used for the creation in Genesis 1 and 2? 6 yoms could have been billions of years, which is long enough for single cells to evolve into the world's current population, and you've already admitted that the Bible's creation story may not be written in chronological order.

It would not be any more of a stretch than the re-interpetation you've already done just to reconcile the Bible with itself.

But if I do yoms as billions of years I am violating the intent of the authors. Now, since the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth 4.55 billion yeasr old, I can't reconcile God's Creation with a literal reading of Genesis 1. So, since Genesis 1 can't be intended to be an accurate history, what was it intended to be? That's where I start to read Genesis 1 as theology and not history. Then it gets really interesting.

 

[lucaspa]

"one we observed in 1998 was about 150 million light years distant"
OK so in a nutshell how was the distance determined?

Distance is determined in layers. Using the earth's orbit as a baseline and seeing the slight shift in the angle at which we have to look at stars, we can use simple trigonometry to calculate the distances to several stars. It turns out that a few Cepheid variables are within this distance.

Cepheid variables have a period of getting brighter and dimmer. It turns out that any Cepheid variable with the same period has the same intrinsic brightness. That means the apparent brightness is now due to how far away they are, by the simple inverse square law. So we can compare the apparent brightness of Cepheids within the distance we can measure by trig to those outside that distance and figure out by simple algebra how far away the Cepheid variables are. That gives us our distances within our galaxy and to the nearest galaxies.

The theory says that inside man's time sphere, time is what it is. But outside of the bubble, it is not going faster or slower, it just isn't a real factor. So the question is not at what speed any explosion, or other event appears to be happening. But whether they would take vast amounts of time to do so. If we were watching real time events in deep space we would simply need to calculate, according to this theory, how it would 'filter in' to our bubble where time is of essence.

But since the supernovae is in our time bubble, the fact that it is proceeding at our time rates shows that the universe is very old and that, as you get further away, time does not speed up. You originally claimed that events speeded up as you got further frmo earth.