6 Days of Creation

Originally posted by RJHinds
The point I was trying to make was the days are not egual to any
number of our years, etc., but are real days like we know them.
They may have a slight difference due the slight changes in speed
of movement of the spinning of the earth and the rotation around
the sun; but they are calculated the same.

"real days like we know them... calculated the same"

You must therefore know how days are calculated now then.

How are they?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]"real days like we know them... calculated the same"

You must therefore know how days are calculated now then.

How are they?[/b]

I do not know exactly how it is calculated, but if you really want
to dig into it. Maybe, the following refernces can get you started.
Don't forget that the speed of movement of moon and earth have changed
gradually over time from the creation period.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time

http://www.sizes.com/time/day.htm

http://www.lunarium.co.uk/astroschool/articles/about-lunar-days.jsp

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not know exactly how it is calculated, but if you really want
to dig into it. Maybe, the following references can get you started.
Don't forget that the speed of movement of moon and earth have changed
gradually over time from the creation period.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time

http://www.sizes.com/time/day.htm

http://www.lunarium.co.uk/astroschool/articles/about-lunar-days.jsp

What gets me is you claiming support from science to make a point when the very
same science completely contradicts and debunks your creationist beliefs.

If you dispute the science that says YEC and 6DC is total bunk, I don't see how you
can then use that science to support your other positions.

It's either wrong or it isn't, which is it?
note: you might find it inconvenient just how much you rely on science for understanding
and explaining the world when you no longer have it.


I can understand the allure of using science to back up your positions, I mean it's
so useful and reliable and backed with such things as logic, reason and evidence.
It fantastic.

It also says your belief in creationism is nuts.

So I am afraid that you don't get to call on science to back up your positions without
being a great big hypocrite.


Science works, which is why you want to use it, great fine, use science, ditch the
Young Earth Creationism.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What gets me is you claiming support from science to make a point when the very
same science completely contradicts and debunks your creationist beliefs.

If you dispute the science that says YEC and 6DC is total bunk, I don't see how you
can then use that science to support your other positions.

It's either wrong or it isn't, which is it?
note: ...[text shortened]... ch is why you want to use it, great fine, use science, ditch the
Young Earth Creationism.

I have never said science is wrong on everything. Why is it necessary
for one to except everything science says just because some things
are right or to reject science totally because they get some things
wrong?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have never said science is wrong on everything. Why is it necessary
for one to except everything science says just because some things
are right or to reject science totally because they get some things
wrong?

It isn't, but you can't claim that some science is wrong because it contradicts the bible and then
use the same science to claim other bits of the bible are right because science says so.

And I am afraid that the bible contradicts pretty much every major scientific principle and theory.
Which means you don't get to use any of it.... At least not while claiming to believe in creationism.


Of course science gets things wrong from time to time, which is why it is continuously correcting
and updating itself, so it gets continuously less wrong over time.

However the stuff you believe in is verifiably testably wrong.
And that is never going to change.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It isn't, but you can't claim that some science is wrong because it contradicts the bible and then
use the same science to claim other bits of the bible are right because science says so.

And I am afraid that the bible contradicts pretty much every major scientific principle and theory.
Which means you don't get to use any of it.... At least not wh ...[text shortened]... er the stuff you believe in is verifiably testably wrong.
And that is never going to change.

Whatever.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Whatever.

Have you ever actually conceded a point, or do you just say whatever, ignore the point,
and make the same mistake/fallacy over and over again?


In other words have you ever been swayed by reason and logic to change your mind, or
to accept that an argument you were making was wrong or invalid?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Have you ever actually conceded a point, or do you just say whatever, ignore the point,
and make the same mistake/fallacy over and over again?


In other words have you ever been swayed by reason and logic to change your mind, or
to accept that an argument you were making was wrong or invalid?

No, in fact I had to make an argument for him on the page 47 of Thread 142206 because he wouldn't admit that his previous argument was baseless.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Have you ever actually conceded a point, or do you just say whatever, ignore the point,
and make the same mistake/fallacy over and over again?


In other words have you ever been swayed by reason and logic to change your mind, or
to accept that an argument you were making was wrong or invalid?

Sure, I do it in chess all the time.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I just looked her up. I hope she doesn't look like her picture. Ha, Ha. 😀
I think she is too good for me. I am lucky to get where I am. I think
my rating is probably too high due to winning from lower rated players.
Now that I am retired I have more time to study all the chess books I
bought years ago when I was playing OTB chess. I'll have to learn a
little more before I am up to her level.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Is skeeter female?

Originally posted by googlefudge
It isn't, but you can't claim that some science is wrong because it contradicts the bible and then use the same science to claim other bits of the bible are right because science says so.

And I am afraid that the bible contradicts pretty much every major scientific principle and theory. Which means you don't get to use any of it.... At least not while claiming to believe in creationism.

Contradictions between the Bible and Science are far, far less than what you have been led to believe.

I believe in the Big Bang and I believe in Evolution.

I also believe that the universe was created by God.

Your argument is mainly with the fundamentalists and the young earth creationists who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. six days means six 24-hour days.

I'm just saying that when viewed with intelligence, the Bible does not contradict Science nearly as much as everyone thinks it does. It only does if your thinking is rigid and inflexible.