Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ohmi · 05-30-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Or it could be that the cosmologically unsophisticated early Hebrews who wrote the Genesis accounts meant six literal 24 hour days.

regards,

NinJay

There were no hours at all then , and Hebrew days are not 24 hours long anyway...

Shadowy Man · 05-30-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

and Hebrew days are not 24 hours long anyway...

Maybe twice a year they are?

-Jay- · 05-30-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Or it could be that the cosmologically unsophisticated early Hebrews who wrote the Genesis accounts meant six literal 24 hour days.

regards,

NinJay

There were no hours at all then , and Hebrew days are not 24 hours long anyway...

Well, fine. Six sunrise-to-sunrise days (or however they were commonly accounted for at the time the stories were first set down).

The sarcasm of my original post, though somewhat diluted by a technicality, still stands.

Keith&Co. · 05-30-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garabato

Genesis gives the right age of the universe
At least it does so taking in count the effect which the stretching of space has on the perception of distant information.

So...the Books is right, as long as we misread the Books, and make it say something other than what it says.

And, if we look at the creation of the world we're standing on as something distant enough for relativistic effects?

youngalexander · 05-30-2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garabato

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct.full article.
The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

Does not make sense either theologically or scientifically.
Theologically apparently the 'creation' lasted from the Big-Bang until the present. What happened to history? Or do we arbitrarily tack on a few years (our time), say 6000yrs? This may have surprised even the ancient Canaanites.

Scientifically he does not explain why 24 hours provides this doubling effect when looking forward from where? The universe does not have a center. Modern cosmology says 13.7billion yrs not 15.75billion. Perhaps it is 2billion yrs we tack on, or subtract, depending upon your point of view.

firebug · 05-30-2008, 10:49 PM

I suspect the key to this "amazing coincidence" is in these words:

"The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million"

Time slows down approaching the big bang and eventually stops at the singularity. So depending what you mean by *near*, you can match it to six days or six years. Or whatever number pleases you.

But this is surely nonsense. So time was slow at the beginning of the Universe, so what? It still does not change the fact that Earth has made more than six revolutions since.

Steven Carr · 05-31-2008, 02:58 AM

You can see why Antony Flew was so impressed by Gerald Scroeder.

And why atheists in general are no longer impressed by Antony Flew's ability to recognise bullshit when he sees it.

ohmi · 05-31-2008, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

There were no hours at all then , and Hebrew days are not 24 hours long anyway...

Well, fine. Six sunrise-to-sunrise days (or however they were commonly accounted for at the time the stories were first set down).

The sarcasm of my original post, though somewhat diluted by a technicality, still stands.

Hmmm... the days in scripture are defined as from sunset [at location of Jerusalem] to sunset , not sunrise to sunrise...

And there was no sun to rise or set until the fourth 'day' , so how could there be a sunrise or sunset without the sun ??? How could there be any 'day' at all without the sun ???????

Doug Shaver · 05-31-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garabato

Comments?

I'll give Schroeder credit for ingenuity, but not anything else.

makerowner · 05-31-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Well, fine. Six sunrise-to-sunrise days (or however they were commonly accounted for at the time the stories were first set down).

The sarcasm of my original post, though somewhat diluted by a technicality, still stands.

Hmmm... the days in scripture are defined as from sunset [at location of Jerusalem] to sunset , not sunrise to sunrise...

And there was no sun to rise or set until the fourth 'day' , so how could there be a sunrise or sunset without the sun ??? How could there be any 'day' at all without the sun ???????

I think you may have missed the point. Whether it was on purpose or not is the question.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-30-2008, 10:49 PM	#16
firebug Regular Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Merryland, USA Posts: 244	I suspect the key to this "amazing coincidence" is in these words: "The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million" Time slows down approaching the big bang and eventually stops at the singularity. So depending what you mean by near, you can match it to six days or six years. Or whatever number pleases you. But this is surely nonsense. So time was slow at the beginning of the Universe, so what? It still does not change the fact that Earth has made more than six revolutions since.

05-31-2008, 02:58 AM	#17
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	You can see why Antony Flew was so impressed by Gerald Scroeder. And why atheists in general are no longer impressed by Antony Flew's ability to recognise bullshit when he sees it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.