Total Posts:316|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What evidence

rnjs
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Then if you go with YEC, which is only one position and a little one at that, then what else is there to say?
However, if you go with the truth, and not generic doctrines then the literal 6 day thing can be thrown out finally. As we know God did not need to take a nap on day 7 (just a figure of speech), neither was a literal 6 day creation the components. The 6 day thing is just setting up a model, also symbolic, the number 7 in scripture symbolizes completion, or a reset.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:56:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Not all Christians say it's "literally" six days https://en.wikipedia.org...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 5:22:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:

What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

It cannot literally be six days because a "day" needs a reference point. Ours, the sun, was not in the picture till the 3rd day. What was the reference point the first 2 days? And wouldn't that mean the duration was not necessarily 24 hours?

God "rested" means God stopped, like when we say the car came to rest at the bottom of the hill. But atheists say words in the Bible can have only one meaning so multiple meanings are Christians trying to cheat.

The Bible's account of creation is amazing. The author mentioned things which are uncannily correct. He does so more often than chance would allow and in far more detail than can be explained.

And Genesis detractors have not been able to rebut a single thing in Genesis without first forcing on it some inane interpretation.

Oh yeah. Its true.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 6:04:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Ignore the arguments put forward by the desperate Christians saying that the word "day" does not really mean a period of 24 hours.

1. The Hebrew word used does indeed mean " day". Supposedly God authored the Bible and so in al His alleged omniscience He chose that very word. Let's note a few of the almost infinite words and expressions at His disposal had He meant something else, such an "unspecified amount of time": time, a period of time, an unspecified amount of time.

2. To those saying that it cannot possibly mean a literal 24-hour day because the Sun hadn't been created yet, consider the folly in that argument. A day is a period of time and therefore it can be expressed in a way that is not dependant upon any natural phenomena. Specifically a day is 86400 seconds. A creative period that lasted, supposedly, 86400 seconds dispenses with the need of having a star as gauge.

3. Consider that up until recently - and in fact still today - Christians read the Bible and they all read what was plainly stated as what was plainly stated. They were all literalists, because that's precisely what the text carries. It took science, not theology, to expose the folly in Genesis. Were it not for modern physics, cosmology, to come into play and eviscerate the biblical account, believers might still be reading the text without mental contortionism.

Nothing in the text in and of itself points to something other than a 24-hour period.

The fact that a significant portion of ardent Christians today still read it that way further suggests that.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 6:18:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

I would like to include an article on the matter, written by modern dat Christians:
"Why I Believe in 24-Hour Days"
https://answersingenesis.org...

Answers in Genesis is a prominent Christian organization dedicated to promoting biblical Creationism.

This is the outlime of the article :

"Introduction
"Seven Reasons 1.Jesus and Cosmology a.Jesus read the text as history and accepted the plain-language meaning of Genesis 1"3.
b.Jesus was not just a man, but participated in creation as God.
c.Jesus allowed the Gospel of Luke to trace his genealogy to Adam.
d.Disciples follow Jesus, they do not teach Him.

2.It is the most natural reading of the Hebrew text (not day/age, "God"s workdays", or "non-chronological, 24-hour days").
3.The plain-language reading is the traditional view.
4.Even modern critical scholars think the traditional view reflects the authorial intent of the text.
5.Theistic evolution"s God is not the God of the Bible.
6.New views about Genesis 1"2 are inconsistent with inerrancy as traditionally interpreted.
7.There are highly educated geologists and paleontologists who affirm the possibility of young earth creationism.

"Conclusion
"Three Other Good Summaries from Scholars a02;Johannes Geerhardus Vos
a02;Trevor Craigen
a02;Louis Berkhof

"Footnotes
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 6:18:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Then if you go with YEC, which is only one position and a little one at that, then what else is there to say?
However, if you go with the truth, and not generic doctrines then the literal 6 day thing can be thrown out finally. As we know God did not need to take a nap on day 7 (just a figure of speech), neither was a literal 6 day creation the components. The 6 day thing is just setting up a model, also symbolic, the number 7 in scripture symbolizes completion, or a reset.

How is it that you have found the correct understanding and others are mistaken?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:40:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
As we know God did not need to take a nap on day 7.

This is day 7.

and let me give you a taste behind the words of the 7-day creation, the word that is used for "day" is the hebrew word "Yom" which, while most commonly translated to "day" with:

- Period of light
- 24 hours
- Point in time
- Sunrise to sunset
- Sunset to next sunset

Can also mean literally:

- A year
- Time period of unspecified length
- A long, but finite amount of time

And that, for me still fits with everything science has to say.
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:43:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
If its literal its obvious who is wrong, if its metaphorical then why is any of the bible believed, and if its a coded message like revelations, again, why is any of the bible believed?
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:56:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:22:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:

What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

It cannot literally be six days because a "day" needs a reference point. Ours, the sun, was not in the picture till the 3rd day. What was the reference point the first 2 days? And wouldn't that mean the duration was not necessarily 24 hours?

God "rested" means God stopped, like when we say the car came to rest at the bottom of the hill. But atheists say words in the Bible can have only one meaning so multiple meanings are Christians trying to cheat.

The Bible's account of creation is amazing. The author mentioned things which are uncannily correct. He does so more often than chance would allow and in far more detail than can be explained.

And Genesis detractors have not been able to rebut a single thing in Genesis without first forcing on it some inane interpretation.

Oh yeah. Its true.

The Bible is extremely inaccurate. The Author clearly had no clue what he was taking about. For example, The Bible says water existed before the stars; that's impossible. For water you need oxygen (that's the "O" in H2O), and oxygen comes from stars when they fuse helium to form heavier elements. This means stars clearly existed before water. If the author couldn't even get that right then we know there is no divinity with regards to that account of creation.
rnjs
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:09:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Then if you go with YEC, which is only one position and a little one at that, then what else is there to say?
However, if you go with the truth, and not generic doctrines then the literal 6 day thing can be thrown out finally. As we know God did not need to take a nap on day 7 (just a figure of speech), neither was a literal 6 day creation the components. The 6 day thing is just setting up a model, also symbolic, the number 7 in scripture symbolizes completion, or a reset.

Well that would be a whole other debate, but it isn't what I asked.
rnjs
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:12:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:56:30 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Not all Christians say it's "literally" six days https://en.wikipedia.org...

That too would be a different debate and is not an answer to my question whatsoever.
rnjs
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:13:27 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 5:22:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:

What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

It cannot literally be six days because a "day" needs a reference point. Ours, the sun, was not in the picture till the 3rd day. What was the reference point the first 2 days? And wouldn't that mean the duration was not necessarily 24 hours?

God "rested" means God stopped, like when we say the car came to rest at the bottom of the hill. But atheists say words in the Bible can have only one meaning so multiple meanings are Christians trying to cheat.

The Bible's account of creation is amazing. The author mentioned things which are uncannily correct. He does so more often than chance would allow and in far more detail than can be explained.

And Genesis detractors have not been able to rebut a single thing in Genesis without first forcing on it some inane interpretation.

Oh yeah. Its true.

Debatable,but not an answer to my question.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:30:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 6:18:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Then if you go with YEC, which is only one position and a little one at that, then what else is there to say?
However, if you go with the truth, and not generic doctrines then the literal 6 day thing can be thrown out finally. As we know God did not need to take a nap on day 7 (just a figure of speech), neither was a literal 6 day creation the components. The 6 day thing is just setting up a model, also symbolic, the number 7 in scripture symbolizes completion, or a reset.

How is it that you have found the correct understanding and others are mistaken?

I'm more partial to this 11 page explanation:

www.hubblerevealscreation.com/genesis
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:43:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

hubblerevealscreation.com/genesis

Makes good sense if you take the time to read it. Apologies for not having the effort to climb another mountain, only to reach it its peak to have its sun disappear from the conquered horizon to rise itself elsewhere
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:57:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Truth is nothing would support it because it contradicts itself.
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 2:24:50 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:30:59 AM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 7/4/2016 6:18:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Then if you go with YEC, which is only one position and a little one at that, then what else is there to say?
However, if you go with the truth, and not generic doctrines then the literal 6 day thing can be thrown out finally. As we know God did not need to take a nap on day 7 (just a figure of speech), neither was a literal 6 day creation the components. The 6 day thing is just setting up a model, also symbolic, the number 7 in scripture symbolizes completion, or a reset.

How is it that you have found the correct understanding and others are mistaken?

I'm more partial to this 11 page explanation:

www.hubblerevealscreation.com/genesis

If the Bible can only be interpreted by using modern science then what of all the believers who existed before the current scientific understanding? Did god mean for the Genesis creation story to be misunderstood for thousands of years? There seems to be a narcissistic undertone to this view. "I and my contemporaries are so important that god didn't intend for the creation story to make sense until we were here".

I have difficulty with that view.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Willows
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:13:32 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Like just about any passage in the bible, theists have always interpreted them to his or her favour. When confronted with finite figures, invariably the excuses come out, e.g. one God day is one billion human years. What baloney and when will theists ever accept the fact that "accounts of fact" in the bible are indeed very wrong. If the account of creation really is the word of God I have no doubt that there would be at least a few bits of technical data that only He would know, but alas, all we have is that man was made from a piece of clay and woman was made from a couple of ribs from the aforementioned; what baloney!
Here's how I would explain in practical terms how light fell on earth before the heavens and the stars (of which our sun is one) were created:
Because God was behind in his frantic deadline to make the sun, he went to his local equipment hire store and got out 15 billion 1000w heat lamps and a billion diesel generators for a day (they are big stores up there and he would no doubt have a good credit rating) and transport them to the (yet to be) light side of the moon. That would be enough to get him out of the pickle.
And pickle goes well with baloney doesn't it?
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:39:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 2:24:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:30:59 AM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 7/4/2016 6:18:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Then if you go with YEC, which is only one position and a little one at that, then what else is there to say?
However, if you go with the truth, and not generic doctrines then the literal 6 day thing can be thrown out finally. As we know God did not need to take a nap on day 7 (just a figure of speech), neither was a literal 6 day creation the components. The 6 day thing is just setting up a model, also symbolic, the number 7 in scripture symbolizes completion, or a reset.

How is it that you have found the correct understanding and others are mistaken?

I'm more partial to this 11 page explanation:

www.hubblerevealscreation.com/genesis

If the Bible can only be interpreted by using modern science then what of all the believers who existed before the current scientific understanding? Did god mean for the Genesis creation story to be misunderstood for thousands of years? There seems to be a narcissistic undertone to this view. "I and my contemporaries are so important that god didn't intend for the creation story to make sense until we were here".

I have difficulty with that view.

In a way you might be right. Perhaps the Bible was never meant to be easily understood unit a certain time arose to humanity to stand up and renew its placement within the Universe. It is said that the world once spoke one language, and with one religion, it seems there were far less questions then, than now. Yet, still they questioned God. They questioned His wisdom and wishes. They resisted in many ways, says the Bible. It seems humanity had lost its faith in their Creator.

I'm not an expert on discussing ways one would restore faith in those trusting their own agendas instead of the original agenda. I've never been in a position of leadership. I've never been positioned to anything other than the frontal view to my own abstract insanity, that looks clear skies once inside it, but a stormy mess of conflicting weathers on its outskirts.

Corporations hold retreats to build trust amongst its employees. They want you to fall, so they can catch you. Some retreats even go far as to demand absolute nudity into the weekend of trust-building events. I don't entirely understand the agenda behind that. Maybe the boss is just a pervert. Maybe he holds a wisdom one cannot see until you strip away all the fabrics masking an appearance to a truth.

Humanity tends to hide what it sees as ugliness. Humanity dresses what it doesn't want shown. Through fashion and makeup, we think we've become more beautiful. Yet nothing is more a beauty than the women who looks elegant without all the muck. Nothing is more handsome than the man who doesn't need to prove it. It seems the farther we run from a beginning, is now more lost to its origin, into we run so far we find its path was all along a circle that never allowed us the real possibility to becoming outright lost.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:10:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:39:56 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:24:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:30:59 AM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 7/4/2016 6:18:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Then if you go with YEC, which is only one position and a little one at that, then what else is there to say?
However, if you go with the truth, and not generic doctrines then the literal 6 day thing can be thrown out finally. As we know God did not need to take a nap on day 7 (just a figure of speech), neither was a literal 6 day creation the components. The 6 day thing is just setting up a model, also symbolic, the number 7 in scripture symbolizes completion, or a reset.

How is it that you have found the correct understanding and others are mistaken?

I'm more partial to this 11 page explanation:

www.hubblerevealscreation.com/genesis

If the Bible can only be interpreted by using modern science then what of all the believers who existed before the current scientific understanding? Did god mean for the Genesis creation story to be misunderstood for thousands of years? There seems to be a narcissistic undertone to this view. "I and my contemporaries are so important that god didn't intend for the creation story to make sense until we were here".

I have difficulty with that view.

Humanity tends to hide what it sees as ugliness. Humanity dresses what it doesn't want shown.

3500 year old ignorance being reinterpreted to fit modern knowledge is epistemic Maybelline. People who already have affection for this ignorance or those who have a poor understanding of epistemology will adore it. Barring those handicaps, it should be seen for what it is: an epistomological pig + cosmetics.

Through fashion and makeup, we think we've become more beautiful. Yet nothing is more a beauty than the women who looks elegant without all the muck. Nothing is more handsome than the man who doesn't need to prove it. It seems the farther we run from a beginning, is now more lost to its origin, into we run so far we find its path was all along a circle that never allowed us the real possibility to becoming outright lost.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:19:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:43:40 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:

If its literal its obvious who is wrong, if its metaphorical then why is any of the bible believed,....

The metaphorical can be true. And literal and metaphorical are not the only 2 choices.

...and if its a coded message like revelations, again, why is any of the bible believed?

It is not meant for everyone.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:21:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:19:27 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 9:43:40 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:

If its literal its obvious who is wrong, if its metaphorical then why is any of the bible believed,....

The metaphorical can be true. And literal and metaphorical are not the only 2 choices.

...and if its a coded message like revelations, again, why is any of the bible believed?

It is not meant for everyone.

Only those dumb enough to believe it.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:29:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 6:04:51 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:

What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Ignore the arguments put forward by the desperate Christians saying that the word "day" does not really mean a period of 24 hours.

Yes. Rather than debate, he should ignore. For those who like facts and reason, we can continue.

1. The Hebrew word used does indeed mean " day". Supposedly God authored the Bible and so in al His alleged omniscience He chose that very word.

Yes, but the word can have more than one meaning. I know, I know, atheists object to words in the Bible having more than the one meaning they ascribe to it, but they will just have to deal with our non-compliance.

2Pe 3:12 - "...Day of God..." Is this "day" 24 hours?
Eph 6:13 - "...the evil day,..." Is this "day" 24 hours?
Heb 3:8 - "Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
Heb 3:9 - When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
This "day" is actually 40 years!

Let's note a few of the almost infinite words and expressions at His disposal had He meant something else, such an "unspecified amount of time": time, a period of time, an unspecified amount of time.

This is too stupid to consider seriously. God did not "mean something else." The word "day" can have more than one meaning. It meant exactly what God intended. If I was telling you about the landing of a spacecraft on Jupiter, the length of a day on Jupiter would not be 24 hours but I would simply call it a day.

2. To those saying that it cannot possibly mean a literal 24-hour day because the Sun hadn't been created yet, consider the folly in that argument.

Side note here. I did not say the sun had not been created yet. So let us not slip that into the official record of Ethan's comments ok?

A day is a period of time and therefore it can be expressed in a way that is not dependant upon any natural phenomena. Specifically a day is 86400 seconds.

lol. Why is a day 86400 seconds Omniverse? Do you know why? Because that is how long it takes any point on the Earth's surface pointing to the sun to revolve and return to that point of facing the sun again. So expressing it in hours, minutes, or seconds, makes no difference, natural days are ALWAYS based on natural phenomena.

Here is the folly in your argument.
1. The period we call "day" on Earth is changing, and has always been changing. The Earth is slowing down.
2. The length of any "day" depends on the relationship between the observer and the light source.
A "day" on Mercury is 58.646 Earth days
A "day" on Uranus is 84 years
A "day" on Neptune is 16 hours, 6 minutes and 36 seconds

A creative period that lasted, supposedly, 86400 seconds dispenses with the need of having a star as gauge.

It lasts 86400 seconds because of the spatial relationship between the Earth and the "solar gauge". Without the sun, the period of 86400 seconds would be arbitrary and non-sensical. What? Do you think we voted on the length of a day?

3. Consider that up until recently - and in fact still today - Christians read the Bible and they all read what was plainly stated as what was plainly stated. They were all literalists, because that's precisely what the text carries.

No sir. They were not all literalists, and those that were, were not that way because "that is what the text carried" but were that way because 1. They were not deep thinkers and approached everything that simplistic way, and 2. because knowledge at the time offered them no better interpretation.

It took science, not theology, to expose the folly in Genesis. Were it not for modern physics, cosmology, to come into play and eviscerate the biblical account, believers might still be reading the text without mental contortionism.

This is simply your biased opinion. We will note that people like you who make such claims, never seem to offer any folly in Genesis except where you have made some silly ad-hoc restriction or loony interpretation.

Nothing in the text in and of itself points to something other than a 24-hour period.

The 24 hour period is derived from reference to the sun. No sun, no reference.

The fact that a significant portion of ardent Christians today still read it that way further suggests that.

Lol. The meaning of the text is determined by the thought of the reader and not the intent of the author or the actual meaning of the words he used?

Again I ask. Is irrationality necessary for atheism?

rnjs - Debatable,but not an answer to my question.

In fact it is. You asked, "...would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

You conflate the the YEC account with the Biblical account. Why? That is an unwarranted assumption.

The word "day" has more than one meaning. The word could not have been in reference to the sun as there was no sun shining at the time. For example, what would be the length of a trip from New York to Washington if Washington didn't exist?
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:31:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:57:01 AM, AtheistBrony wrote:

Truth is nothing would support it because it contradicts itself.
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Hey illegalcombatant! We have yet another one who doesn't know what light is.

Debate from ignorance. Always so pretty.
Willows
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:34:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:19:27 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 9:43:40 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:

If its literal its obvious who is wrong, if its metaphorical then why is any of the bible believed,....

The metaphorical can be true. And literal and metaphorical are not the only 2 choices.

...and if its a coded message like revelations, again, why is any of the bible believed?

It is not meant for everyone.

It is meant for people who are so naive that if they believe anything they will believe the absolute nonsense contained within it.
It is also meant (and historically this was the original intention) for those in authority to inflict their ruthless interpretations upon the masses.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:41:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 2:24:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:30:59 AM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 7/4/2016 6:18:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:

If the Bible can only be interpreted by using modern science then what of all the believers who existed before the current scientific understanding?

Why should we accept your astounding claim that the Bible can only be interpreted using modern science?

And think about this. Think now....... the science of every "time" is modern science! What you meant to ask is, "If the Bible can only be interpreted by using science of today....." And the question still doesn't make sense.

Did god mean for the Genesis creation story to be misunderstood for thousands of years?

Are you hyperventilating? The story has nothing to do with the length of the "day". It's just atheists, frustrated over not being able to refute it, who focus on a tidbit not relevant to the purpose of the story. The message God intended to get across can be understood perfectly well without know how long the "day" was. Do you think the length of the day is God's purpose in Genesis??? Really?

There seems to be a narcissistic undertone to this view. "I and my contemporaries are so important that god didn't intend for the creation story to make sense until we were here".

Well congrats, you've found why that one is silly all on your own.

I have difficulty with that view.

Most likely because you still have working brain cells, and are willing to use them.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:44:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:34:19 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:19:27 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 9:43:40 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:

If its literal its obvious who is wrong, if its metaphorical then why is any of the bible believed,....

The metaphorical can be true. And literal and metaphorical are not the only 2 choices.

...and if its a coded message like revelations, again, why is any of the bible believed?

It is not meant for everyone.

It is meant for people who are so naive that if they believe anything they will believe the absolute nonsense contained within it.
It is also meant (and historically this was the original intention) for those in authority to inflict their ruthless interpretations upon the masses.

You sound like Joseph Stalin.

But we aren't in communist Russia, and I do not have to swallow your unsupported claims just because you said them.

I will stick with the facts, and you can continue to play communist atheist. Everybody happy?
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:49:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:56:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 5:22:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:

The Bible is extremely inaccurate. The Author clearly had no clue what he was taking about.

Are you sure? Do you know what you're talking about? Let's see.

For example, The Bible says water existed before the stars; that's impossible.

Actually, the Bible does not say that water existed before the stars. This is what you get for parroting the qoutes from an atheist site. They aren't always honest.

This means stars clearly existed before water. If the author couldn't even get that right then we know there is no divinity with regards to that account of creation.

So we see that it is rather you who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Is anyone surprised?
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 5:00:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:10:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:39:56 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:24:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:30:59 AM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 7/4/2016 6:18:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:51:06 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:12:05 PM, rnjs wrote:
What evidence or interpretation of the evidence/facts would support the Biblical account of creation. The YEC literal six day creation is what I am referring to.

Then if you go with YEC, which is only one position and a little one at that, then what else is there to say?
However, if you go with the truth, and not generic doctrines then the literal 6 day thing can be thrown out finally. As we know God did not need to take a nap on day 7 (just a figure of speech), neither was a literal 6 day creation the components. The 6 day thing is just setting up a model, also symbolic, the number 7 in scripture symbolizes completion, or a reset.

How is it that you have found the correct understanding and others are mistaken?

I'm more partial to this 11 page explanation:

www.hubblerevealscreation.com/genesis

If the Bible can only be interpreted by using modern science then what of all the believers who existed before the current scientific understanding? Did god mean for the Genesis creation story to be misunderstood for thousands of years? There seems to be a narcissistic undertone to this view. "I and my contemporaries are so important that god didn't intend for the creation story to make sense until we were here".

I have difficulty with that view.

Humanity tends to hide what it sees as ugliness. Humanity dresses what it doesn't want shown.

3500 year old ignorance being reinterpreted to fit modern knowledge is epistemic Maybelline. People who already have affection for this ignorance or those who have a poor understanding of epistemology will adore it. Barring those handicaps, it should be seen for what it is: an epistomological pig + cosmetics.

I don't know what you're saying, but I like the way it was said. Maybe one day when my vocabulary expands to your wide array of complicity, my faith to your wisdom will lose its current distortion. My current dictionary is simply lacking the necessary index to reason whatever it is I need to understand.

Through fashion and makeup, we think we've become more beautiful. Yet nothing is more a beauty than the women who looks elegant without all the muck. Nothing is more handsome than the man who doesn't need to prove it. It seems the farther we run from a beginning, is now more lost to its origin, into we run so far we find its path was all along a circle that never allowed us the real possibility to becoming outright lost.
Willows
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 5:05:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:44:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:34:19 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:19:27 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 9:43:40 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:

If its literal its obvious who is wrong, if its metaphorical then why is any of the bible believed,....

The metaphorical can be true. And literal and metaphorical are not the only 2 choices.

...and if its a coded message like revelations, again, why is any of the bible believed?

It is not meant for everyone.

It is meant for people who are so naive that if they believe anything they will believe the absolute nonsense contained within it.
It is also meant (and historically this was the original intention) for those in authority to inflict their ruthless interpretations upon the masses.

You sound like Joseph Stalin.

But we aren't in communist Russia, and I do not have to swallow your unsupported claims just because you said them.

I will stick with the facts, and you can continue to play communist atheist. Everybody happy?

Well perhaps you may like to suck on the fact that King Henry VIII used quotes from the bible and his assertion that he was commissioned by god to brutally execute and torture anyone who dared get in his way or show the slightest dissent to his harsh religious rule.
And talk about brutality, Hitler was a devout catholic and went about the invasion of Europe and the extermination of Jews in the name of God. Stalin was an atheist and just as brutal but never went on his campaigns in the name of atheism.