The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[Polymath257]

Of course God is rotating the Earth. At the rapture, there is night and day at different times in different parts of the Earth and the Earth is described as rotating on its axis and the sun then producing day.
I will be posting more proofs soon.

Where is the Earth described as rotating on its axis? Remember that the common view at the time (I am assuming about 400BC for this--older views have a flat Earth more consistent with Genesis) was that the Earth was a sphere at the center of the universe and all stars, planets, and the sun went around the Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

The Bible is online and you should read it for yourself. I study and read it all the time.

Yes, the Bible should be read for the cultural insight it gives. We can see the way the beliefs change over time, how the mythology evolves, and how Christians co-opted the Jewish belief system. It is especially interesting to compare it to other texts of the various times and in surrounding areas.

Might I suggest a couple of authors? How about Bart Ehrman (who has written quite extensively and knowledgably about early Christianity) and William Dever (who has written extensively about pre Temple Judaism)? They might just help to put the Biblical writings in context.

 

[Yokefellow]

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 82816

Cute drawing, but of no value without evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

View attachment 82816

A classic from A Wheeler.

 

[Valjean]

And yet no one has met the challenge I posted why?

Most fossils are > 6,000 years old, as are the media they're found in. Many coral reefs, volcano sponges, and stromatolites are over 6,000 years. Much cave art is older. Many glaciers, and the great Greenland and antarctic ice sheets ice sheets have been there for tens of thousands of years. The dendrochronological record dates back more than 6,000 years. The world's mountain ranges have been there for millions of years. Göbekli Tepe was inhabited more than 6,000 years ago.

 

[Sargonski]

Light is created on day 1, and then separated from the darkness. That is directed light. So with the Earth spinning on its axis at about a rate of once every 24 hours, you get night and day.

you are hoplessly lost in denial .. but First off .. welcome to two different creation acounts and there is no "Directed light" that is completely made up nonsense on your part -- doesn't tell us any info on the source of the light but it doesn't matter .. what ever the nature of that light .. or nature of that separate and contradictory account - and thanks for proving to yourself fallibility in the Bible) - -

It is clearly stated when the Sun and Moon were created on the fourth day. And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

What part did you not understand ? If there is no Sun .. there is nothing to govern the day .. but more importantly .. it is the moon that crushes any hope .. as in the first case there is no moon to govern the night no lesser light .. just darkness ..

In any case -- no way to measure 24 hour day .. in the first scenario .. as soon as you remove your directed light source .. and your assumption that the earth was spinning .. that God didn't start the spinning when moon and sun were in place.

Oh .. hold on .. who was it that was saying something about No assumptions.. shooting legs out from asunder -- triple hooped and crucified this position of yours ..

What I don't understand .. is why you are not jumping up and down with Glee ??? You no longer have to believe in 6000 year nonsense in order to maintain your faith in the entire Bible .. that strange literalist position where if one tiny chip in the foundation anywhere collapses the whole structure .. but what ever .. stucture is safe -- you don't have to believe in the 6000 year nonsense no more .. as this is not supported by the Bible.

BUT -- unfortunately - while there is an out for you on the 6000 year problem -- what are you going to do about the contradictory accounts .. on the same page .. just a few paragraphs apart ... how will you salvage the day on that one Friend .. whats going on here .. why are there two different creation accounts ..

 

[Sargonski]

And yet no one has met the challenge I posted why?

that is a naughty falsehood on your part Friend .. Told you about the Coral .. told you about the Ice cores .. told you about the tree rings for that matter -- and told you why your "No assumptions" comment is existentialist nonsense

Challenge met and exceeded .. your position was crucified .. seems one has been decieved quite some already .. let us not continue further this self deception ..

 

[Sargonski]

And yet no one has met the challenge I posted why?

that is a naughty falsehood on your part Friend .. Told you about the Coral .. told you about the Ice cores .. told you about the tree rings for that matter -- and told you why your "No assumptions" comment is existentialist nonsense

Challenge met and exceeded .. your position was crucified .. seems one has been decieved quite some already .. let us not continue further down this path of self deception ..

 

[Valjean]

The Sun was here for billions of years before the moon was formed from debris knocked off the Earth in probable a collision with another large body.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Sun was here for billions of years before the moon was formed from debris knocked off the Earth in probable a collision with another large body.

I do not think billions. But definitely in the millions range.

Yes, a bit over ten million:

Origin of the Moon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I do not think billions. But definitely in the millions range.

Yes, a bit over ten million:

Origin of the Moon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So they have multiple theories and all have been proven false.

 

[Polymath257]

So they have multiple theories and all have been proven false.

Nope. That the moon formed from a collision with the early Earth is well established.

Again, the Bible isn't a reliable science book (or, for that matter, a reliable history book).

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope. That the moon formed from a collision with the early Earth is well established.

Again, the Bible isn't a reliable science book (or, for that matter, a reliable history book).

That the moon cannot be that old is also established.

 

[F1fan]

So they have multiple theories and all have been proven false.

Where? I can't find any new science that says something different. Can you link us to a reputable source that explains how the moon formed and how many millions of years old it is?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Where? I can't find any new science that says something different. Can you link us to a reputable source that explains how the moon formed and how many millions of years old it is?

Please give the exact unchanging official theory for:
The origin of the universe
and the origin of the first living creature.

 

[F1fan]

That the moon cannot be that old is also established.

According to your faulty interpretation of the Bible. Why are you interpreting the Bible in a way that is contrary to facts and knowledge?

Please give the exact unchanging official theory for:

Who told you this is anything we fallible mortals can attain? All theories in science have changed over time, and that's because we humans have moved from ancient beliefs, as found in the Bible, to fact-based explantions, as science reveals. So your standard here is self-defeating and allows no answers at all, including you. Your own creationist beliefs have changed over time, so even they have changed. They aren't even exact. Notice you have ignored where you came up with how the earth rotates when it isn't mentioned in the Bible. You must be relying on modern science, not the Bible.

The origin of the universe

Oh, you must have missed all the references to the Big Bang by other members.

and the origin of the first living creature.

What does this mean? Do you mean simple cells? Do you even know what you are asking?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

According to your faulty interpretation of the Bible. Why are you interpreting the Bible in a way that is contrary to facts and knowledge?

Who told you this is anything we fallible mortals can attain? All theories in science have changed over time, and that's because we humans have moved from ancient beliefs, as found in the Bible, to fact-based explantions, as science reveals. So your standard here is self-defeating and allows no answers at all, including you. Your own creationist beliefs have changed over time, so even they have changed. They aren't even exact. Notice you have ignored where you came up with how the earth rotates when it isn't mentioned in the Bible. You must be relying on modern science, not the Bible.

Oh, you must have missed all the references to the Big Bang by other members.

What does this mean? Do you mean simple cells? Do you even know what you are asking?

So you still do not know.
The Bible predicted this about 2000 years ago.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 2 Tim 3:7

 

[Polymath257]

That the moon cannot be that old is also established.

Really? How so?

Don't use the (incredibly outdated) estimates for lunar dust thickness used before the Apollo missions. Use instead the *modern* accumulations based on satellite data. And don't point to the rate that the moon is moving away from the Earth unless you can discuss the orbital dynamics over the relevant time period.

Suggestion: don't learn science from creationist sources. They lie so they can get your money and support.

 

[Polymath257]

Please give the exact unchanging official theory for:
The origin of the universe
and the origin of the first living creature.

We don't have established explanations for either. Why not? Because the relevant data has not been discovered.

We *do* have good explanations for events after the first second or so into the current expansion of the universe. We also have very good descriptions of how species change over time (evolution).

You see, science is based on data and not on desires or emotions.