Man destroys theory of evolution in 4 minutes!!!

[Jake Jarmell]

An object isn't a reference frame. You can say that we have an inertial frame of reference centered on the Earth if you want.


But the Bible does say that. It says that two events took place on Earth. It doesn't say how far apart in time those events were.

You are arbitrarily choosing 24 hours to be that time, because that is how long the same two events take place in the modern day, as measured from inertial reference frame centered on earth.

This is completely arbitrary. 4 billion years ago, the length of days were completely different. If you are moving very fast, the length of days are different. If you use the sun to center your inertial frame, the length of days are different.

You are assuming one very narrow view that isn't supported in text at all, and acting like you are certain that it is the case.


That's it. I've debunked your arguments. Mine still stands. I'm not discussing this anymore.

It's funny watching you squirm and play word games that no one is buying. You're just wrong. You don't understand what literal means and don't understand what "day" means. What it meant 3 million years ago is irrelevent...it matters what it meant when it was written. A day means essentially the same thing then in that location as it does now.

It's clear to anyone viewing this that you are grasping at straws here. According to you, literal can mean almost anything. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[sickc0d3r]

So we can't assume that words have meaning? Awesome, that really makes the bible a helpful guide.

He's already failed to comprehend this implication, among others, of his arguments. Try to keep up!

 

[MeatheadMike]

There is nothing in the Bible that implies that the first days were 24 hours.

It tells you exactly what it means a day. It means sun comes up, goes down, and comes up again.

That is an event-based measurement system, not a time-based measurement system. You are just getting confused because in colloquial terms, we often use an alternate definition of day to mean 24 hours. The Bible is explicit in which definition is is using though. Day isn't even an measurement of time in this context.

That's fine. Just for argument's sake, lets say I accept your premise that a "day" in that context means something vastly different than 24 hours.

Regardless of that, the bible written something like 3500 years ago, right? During that time period we know that a "day" was still roughly 24 hours, and most people using the term "day" would be referring to roughly a 24 hour period. So my questions still remain unanswered:

"Wouldn't you agree that most people reading the bible (at any point in human history since the time it was written) would logically conclude that a day is roughly 24 hours? If that was not the intent of the writers... then wouldn't that make them dishonest, and bring the credibility of the bible itself into question?

Further more doesn't the word "day" occur many times thorugthout the bible? If we established that a day equals something vastly different than 24 hours, wouldn't that cause other places where the word "day" occurs to not make any sense in their contexts?"

 

[m52nickerson]

An object isn't a reference frame. You can say that we have an inertial frame of reference centered on the Earth if you want.


But the Bible does say that. It says that two events took place on Earth. It doesn't say how far apart in time those events were.

You are arbitrarily choosing 24 hours to be that time, because that is how long the same two events take place in the modern day, as measured from inertial reference frame centered on earth.

This is completely arbitrary. 4 billion years ago, the length of days were completely different. If you are moving very fast, the length of days are different. If you use the sun to center your inertial frame, the length of days are different.

You are assuming one very narrow view that isn't supported in text at all, and acting like you are certain that it is the case.


That's it. I've debunked your arguments. Mine still stands. I'm not discussing this anymore.

The Earth cann't be a frame or referrence but the frame can be centered on the Earth? Wow, that is an important distinction to make.

See the bibe does tell us, very clearly how long. The answer is a day which on earth is about 24 hours. Days have gotten longer during the history of the Earth, but the time frame the bible lays out for the begining we know it was still around 24 hours.

You are simply refusing to accept that words have certain meanings. You have not debunked a thing, only made yourself look like a fool.

 

[m52nickerson]

That's now what you wrote. You wrote

Special relativity has nothing do with why the Bible doesn't contradict science. It was FissionFusion who brought it up.

LOLWUT?

You keep bring up special relativity, you have done it over and over. If it has nothing to do with your argument why are you bringing it up?

 

[ArlovskiFang]

4 minutes? What a waste of time.

If evolution is true, why do we still get monkeys?

That's it. The whole evolution "theory" debunked in one or two seconds, so I'm not watching this.

LOL YOU POOR DUMB ASS BRAZILIAN NUTHUGGER.

That's not how this shit works.

Why wouldn't monkeys and apes exist? They evolved to exist, from earlier forms of monkeys and apes.

What, you think this is some pokemon type shit where creatures reach a certain level and then they transform magically into another fucking creature? Lol.

Chimpanzees aren't going to suddenly transform into humans. Nor were we ever chimpanzees in the past.

We evolved from some other ape, and now we have evolved into the apes we currently are. And chimps evolved to be the apes they currently are now. But we did have a common ancestor that we branched off from.

Go feed some damn carrots to a bus you idjeet.

 

[m52nickerson]

Further more doesn't the word "day" occur many times thorugthout the bible? If we established that a day equals something vastly different than 24 hours, wouldn't that cause other places where the word "day" occurs to not make any sense in their contexts?"

The new video card I ordered is post to arrive in 3-5 days, I guess that could mean any time from now to the end of time.


Damn!

 

[Hadron]

That's fine. Just for argument's sake, lets say I accept your premise that a "day" in that context means something vastly different than 24 hours.

Regardless of that, the bible written something like 3500 years ago, right? During that time period we know that a "day" was still roughly 24 hours, and most people using the term "day" would be referring to roughly a 24 hour period. So my questions still remain unanswered:

"Wouldn't you agree that most people reading the bible (at any point in human history since the time it was written) would logically conclude that a day is roughly 24 hours? If that was not the intent of the writers... then wouldn't that make them dishonest, and bring the credibility of the bible itself into question?

No. Many people might conclude 24 hours, but that is not the literally, logical conclusion. Because the Bible did not literally say 24 hours.


So ok, maybe you argue that even if they are wrong, that's what they will conclude. I'll counter that one of the central messages in the Bible is that knowledge, and even moreso, the pretense of knowledge is dangerous, and often leads away from God. Humans became thinkers, but not perfect thinkers. Hence, we will arrive to many false conclusions, but in our arrogance, think we have arrived at the correct one.

The Bible is inerrant. What is written explicitly is true. Our source of errors when we try to do any sort of extrapolation from that, or in between the lines.




So yes, people will misunderstand and misinterpret the Bible. People always have. Many will use it to twist others to gain power. Many will kill people over slightly different and probably both wrong interpretations.

But all of this is the fault of man, not of The Bible. Hammers are made to drive nails. They do this well. If you try to cut your yard with a hammer, it will work poorly, but that is your fault, not the hammer's.

 

[Hadron]

The new video card I ordered is post to arrive in 3-5 days, I guess that could mean any time from now to the end of time.


Damn!

They are using days as a unit of time, not of events. They would still call it days even if you were on the moon, and had no sunrise, sunset cycle.

 

[afrdzak]

I feel like religion does a lot of good for a lot of people.
But when I read threads like this, I kinda second guess that feeling

 

[m52nickerson]

No. Many people might conclude 24 hours, but that is not the literally, logical conclusion. Because the Bible did not literally say 24 hours.

Like, literally you have no literal idea what literally, literally means.

 

[Hadron]

That's fine. Just for argument's sake, lets say I accept your premise that a "day" in that context means something vastly different than 24 hours.

We have established a day as a full cycle of the sun in the sky.


Sometimes, that will happen to take 24 hours, other times, maybe not. You know for example, that if Jesus was on the cross for a certain number of days, you can probably assume he was there for multiples of 24 hours measured in the earth centered inertial frame, since we know where was crucified, and we know the rotational period of the earth at that time.



But you can't extrapolate that back to prehistorical times, or even metaphysical times.

 

[m52nickerson]

They are using days as a unit of time, not of events. They would still call it days even if you were on the moon, and had no sunrise, sunset cycle.

Yes and that unit of time is about 24 hours, which it has been and why the writers of the bible used it to indicate how long the creation events took.

 

[sickc0d3r]

In case nobody has posted this:

lit

 

[Hadron]

Yes and that unit of time is about 24 hours, which it has been and why the writers of the bible used it to indicate how long the creation events took.

I debunked this already.

Next.

 

[Jake Jarmell]

I debunked this already.

Next.

No you haven't, you haven't debunked anything. You refuse to accept you don't understand what literal means.

 

[m52nickerson]

I debunked this already.

Next.

Reality says you are wrong!

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

 

[MeatheadMike]

No. Many people might conclude 24 hours, but that is not the literally, logical conclusion. Because the Bible did not literally say 24 hours.


So ok, maybe you argue that even if they are wrong, that's what they will conclude. I'll counter that one of the central messages in the Bible is that knowledge, and even moreso, the pretense of knowledge is dangerous, and often leads away from God. Humans became thinkers, but not perfect thinkers. Hence, we will arrive to many false conclusions, but in our arrogance, think we have arrived at the correct one.

The Bible is inerrant. What is written explicitly is true. Our source of errors when we try to do any sort of extrapolation from that, or in between the lines.




So yes, people will misunderstand and misinterpret the Bible. People always have. Many will use it to twist others to gain power. Many will kill people over slightly different and probably both wrong interpretations.

But all of this is the fault of man, not of The Bible. Hammers are made to drive nails. They do this well. If you try to cut your yard with a hammer, it will work poorly, but that is your fault, not the hammer's.

Regardless of weather the bible is right or wrong... you still have not answered my questions, and even edited the bottom ones out from my post. I'll repost, now for the 4th time:

"Wouldn't you agree that most people reading the bible (at any point in human history since the time it was written) would logically conclude that a day is roughly 24 hours? If that was not the intent of the writers... then wouldn't that make them dishonest, and bring the credibility of the bible itself into question?

Further more doesn't the word "day" occur many times thorugthout the bible? If we established that a day equals something vastly different than 24 hours, wouldn't that cause other places where the word "day" occurs to not make any sense in their contexts?"


I'm pretty sure that you are not going to answer them. So I'll just say this.... I'm ok with you or anyone else believing what you want to believe. I don't think it is necessarily right to "prove" anybody's belief's wrong, especially if people need religion to help them get through the day. The problem I (and possibly others ITT) have is when people try to pretend that religion is just as scientific or accurate as actual scientific theories such as the theory of evolution... or even use religion as a basis discredit scientific theories. This leads us down a dark road where important scientific discoveries will be held back by religion... much like how it was during the times of Galileo.

 

[kpt018]

Even if I accepted all the crap you are selling here, it still wouldn't support your statement. The first day on Earth was considerably shorter than 24 hours. You don't get 24 hours to a day no matter how you splice it.

Lol, I am not selling anything. It's either a day is defined or it isn't. If it isn't defined the whole passage is useless.

Most people will read day and interpret that as 24 hours but you are arguing it is not defined. So the passage has no point.

 

[kpt018]

He's already failed to comprehend this implication, among others, of his arguments. Try to keep up!

My bad. I confess, I got bored with the thread when he didn't address my points about the existence of god so I skipped a bunch of pages. I just jumped back in to see what was going on lol.