Re: Is the Universe 6 days old?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This dosen't make sense to me. Please clarify your argument if you're going to make one.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually I made one, but obviously not clearly enough. I'll do point form -
- If I say I'll pay you $1 for each time you run around the house and touch the front door, it's a 'position' related event, not a time related.
- The time you take to do it will vary, but the meaning of 'once around' doesn't.
- It makes no sense to talk about "seconds it takes to run around house" if over billions of years the length of time has changed enormously.
- It's especially difficult in the case of "Days" because of the "when was the 1st rotation" of earth problems. At one time, was it a small cluster of debris rotating at 10 times per second, or a gaseous spheroid slowly cooling and spinning at different speeds at different heights.
- 'how many seconds in a day' has no meaning if there is no reason to pick one specific moment in the earths history and treat that as the 'definitive' day.
- that's one reason we don't base our timing ( seconds/hours ) on portions of 'days'. Even in our short span here it's too inconsistant to be useful as a time measurement below a very kludgy level.
hope that's clearer, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where to start because I don't know specifically what aspect of the theory you are trying to refute.

Maybe you're just trying to say that a 'day' is a stupid thing to analyze because it can't be well defined. Schroeder however, has defined it, as a contemporary 24hr day, based on scriptural evidence.

The argument contends that there are many points in space (due to the expansion of the universe), where if the time period of six contemporary human days on earth pass, it would be perceived as ~15 billion years here. This dosen't claim that the earth has undergone 6x10^12 rotations or anything, just that 6x10^12 periods of time equivalent to a modern 'day' have passed.

I suppose it would be fair to pick the modern 'definitive day' as the length of the average day 3000 years or so ago. If you are confused by the changing length of daylight through the year, I believe most calculations involving the length of a day use either 24hrs, 1/365.25 * time for a year, or 1/365.24 * time for a year. These agree to within 4 minutes tho.

Ummm..... where else should we go with this?

Re: Is the Universe 6 days old?
 

you're definitely right, thinkquick. schroeder's calculations are accurate.

Re: Is the Universe 6 days old?
 

[ QUOTE ]
you're definitely right, thinkquick. schroeder's calculations are accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]


Haha.
Come now, I haven't even given my complete opinion. I certainly don't think that his calculations are spot on, and it is a little convenient that they more accurately agreed with the estimate of the age of the universe at the time the book was written then they do with the current estimate.

I'm simply asking for 2+2 help with a discussion on flaws, etc. in the argument. My comment to luckyme isn't intended to defend Schroeder's theory, but to demonstrate that I don't think luckyme made a relevant post.



Zygote, I like your answer and I think it highlights a giant issue that I'm not sure how Schroeder or other creationists handle. Any input?

This link I just found summarizes a bunch of the basic conflicts between scripture and evoluion.

Re: Is the Universe 6 days old?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Ummm..... where else should we go with this?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
I suppose it would be fair to pick the modern 'definitive day' as the length of the average day

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is that 'fair' ...because it makes the numbers work? Why not the length of day when the information arrived at the end of the 1st "Day"? At least for the calculation of the length of the 1st day. My original "kennedy has 6 letters, Oswald has 6 letters" was attempting a quick comment that if you're allowed to simply pick numbers that fit some theory rather than have to come up with a reason for those numbers then we can always find starting points or connection points that make some set of numbers work.
The issue isn't just over 'days', but if that one isn't bothering anyone, no need to dig around anymore. And if it is bothering anyone, the case is closed.

Re: Is the Universe 6 days old?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ummm..... where else should we go with this?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
I suppose it would be fair to pick the modern 'definitive day' as the length of the average day

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is that 'fair' ...because it makes the numbers work? Why not the length of day when the information arrived at the end of the 1st "Day"? At least for the calculation of the length of the 1st day. My original "kennedy has 6 letters, Oswald has 6 letters" was attempting a quick comment that if you're allowed to simply pick numbers that fit some theory rather than have to come up with a reason for those numbers then we can always find starting points or connection points that make some set of numbers work.
The issue isn't just over 'days', but if that one isn't bothering anyone, no need to dig around anymore. And if it is bothering anyone, the case is closed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, the numbers are convenient and seem ad hoc to make them work.
Schroeder's point is that he wishes to convert the times to modern day values because we 'look back' using modern day values when we give the age of the universe in contemporary years.
I dont think this is contentious in any way.

Anyways we agree in very general terms but I think we're jus confusing each other now