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
|