Joshua's Long Day

That does match well with my view of the Bible. It is not a science textbook of ""what" or "how," but rather a guide to interactions among people, the "why."

The most major book on the topic is still Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision"Page Not Found - Knowledge ComputingAmazon.com

Velikovsky's arguments have problems, and as such is not exactly an "authority." He seems to forget the physics involved.And arguments regarding the extra day have been shot down many times:
CE010: Missing day
Imagine the Universe!

The talk.origins FAQ/FGU system is not a believable source.{edited out huge cut and paste fromInconstant Speed of Light May Debunk Einstein , post 149.Mr. Holden, please read our Forum Guidelines and refrain from cut and pasting from easily linked websites with no extra commentary. - the Queen}This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 07-11-2004 04:22 PM

There are two basic reasons why I am not a young-earth or young-universe creationist. One has to do with Venus, which is ballpark for the sort of age estimate which Bishop Usher favored, i.e. 5000 - 10000 years more or less. We all know what Venus looks like now, 900 F surface temperatures, no regolith, statistically random impact crater dispersal, 90-bar CO2 atmosphere etc. etc. i.e. a vision of Dante's inferno.Since Earth and Mars do not in any way look like that, you have to assume they are significantly older. Probably not hundreds of millions or billions of years old, but older than any sort of an age you could deduce from biblical chronologies.The other reason for rejecting young-universe creationism is philosophical. Basically, if an omnipotent God figured out it would be a cool thing to do to create the universe 7,000 or even 17 billion years ago, then why didn't he figure that out 17 trillion or 17 quadrillion years ago? That does not make sense.Without a time machine there's no real way of knowing but, until somebody produces the time machine, I am assuming that the universe is eternal, and that creation stories generally refer to the creation of our own Earth and local solar system environment.

quote:

---

The talk.origins FAQ/FGU system is not a believable source.

---

ANd I guess that you convenietly "forgot" the other source? Yes, NASA is a hotbed of "evolutionism," right!This message has been edited by Steen, 07-12-2004 06:38 PM

How does physics relate to a point in creation?
Presumably there were no laws of physics before that point!"Goddunit" sounds good!But perhaps deceleration through magnetic feild inversion could be the mechanism? The energy from the momentum change could be dispered or transferred through the magnetic field taking away from the necessity of kinetic energy to rear its ugly head and break the planet apert. This would also cause a greater extension of the magnetic field into the surrounding space stopping or redirecting the amount of solar radiation that would get to the earths lower atmosphere which would otherwise have an extra days worth of heating up! Man that would be hot!

From where do you derive your estimate for the age of Venus?You seem to have missed that cruical step.

---

The Laminator

​

Thanks Lam,I first saw that cartoon many years ago and have looked for it from time to time since, with no luck.Amlodhi

{quote"Goddunit" sounds good![/quote]Well, it would relieve you of actually having to prove the weird claims you make.

quote:

---

But perhaps deceleration through magnetic feild inversion could be the mechanism?

---

Kind of like a Singularity inversion? Yes, that is one of the predominate thoughts on this hypothesis.

quote:

---

This would also cause a greater extension of the magnetic field into the surrounding space stopping or redirecting the amount of solar radiation that would get to the earths lower atmosphere which would otherwise have an extra days worth of heating up! Man that would be hot!

---

Not really, as there is no evidence of the Earth existing until about 10 bill years after the Singularity Inversion.But aren't we getting a bit off-topic as to how the Erath was NOT shredded to pieces if it suddenly stopped one day for 24 hours, then abruptly started up again?After all, the issue is accuracy/inerrancy of the Bible. Is the Dewsxription of Joshua's day accurate?

I actually have a shirt that has that picture on there.

---

The Laminator

​

Ha Ha, you would Lam. I think that cartoon should be your next picture of the month.

Good idea Consider it done.

---

The Laminator

​

i love that cartoon. i grew in the local u's math dept, and one of the mathematicians there has had that on his door for a good ten years.i'm rather suprised to see it elswhere.