How long was a day when the universe began

[Nimos]

They are not under God's terms. They choose their own terms to live by.

Not sure I understand, so a child living on the street in some poor country, should have chosen more wisely?

 

[nPeace]

Not sure I understand, so a child living on the street in some poor country, should have chosen more wisely?

Seems I am not understanding you.
I thought we were talking about people choosing their terms over God's terms.
Perhaps you have moved on to something else?

 

[Nimos]

Seems I am not understanding you.
I thought we were talking about people choosing their terms over God's terms.
Perhaps you have moved on to something else?

I don't think so, you wrote:

God made us to live forever, and enjoy life forever, on his terms.

This was what I commented on, that not all people live enjoyable lives, so God's terms don't really seem to work for a lot of people.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If for some reason I hated you, what do you think I would say about you especially if influenced by your worst enemies? Because people may hate you, that doesn't make you bad, does it. Nor does it make any lie they tell, truth, does it. Isn't that what jealousy does... cause one to lie on and hate on the one they are jealous of.

I don't understand the point of this comment. I doesn't address what appears in the quote above it, which was this:

"Have you seen the Old Testament? Dawkins, every Abrahamic theist's least favorite neoatheist and best-selling author, says, "The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." This is based on the stories in it. I've seen them too. The "happy God" has children dashed upon the rocks, slain if they're firstborn, and torn apart by bears for calling somebody bald. How is that the happy God?"

Then you must know everything, and those who disagree with you... nothing.

I said I know what love is and what it isn't. I know that. You think you do as well, although we disagree about what that is.

The Chinese don't seem to have a problem with that.

Agreed. They don't force unwanted births.

 

[Muffled]

Many arguments here about the bible and creation are about "a day". We all only know the concept of "a day" as we live our lives here on earth.

How long was a day when the universe became the universe?

I believe an assumption is being made that the earth was created at the same time as the universe but I believe the creation story is particular to the earth since that is the main concern of man.

 

[Muffled]

Usually time's speed is one second per second. That appears to be quite reliable. So, I suppose a day took about one day.

Ciao

- viole

I believe a day on earth is not the same as a day on Jupiter. I imagine any other planets would have their own version of days as well if they have a day at all.

 

[Muffled]

A rotation of the earth is something we use as a measurement of time. A foot is always a foot. Do you think we would go back in time if earth started rotating the other way?

No, but Los Angeles would celebrate New Years before Sydney.

 

[Father Heathen]

No, but Los Angeles would celebrate New Years before Sydney.

And?

 

[viole]

I believe a day on earth is not the same as a day on Jupiter. I imagine any other planets would have their own version of days as well if they have a day at all.

Well, that is the same on earth. A day in Kiruna is a few weeks long around the Summer solstice. And at the North Pole, some months long. Which begs the question what a week or a month is, if not based on some standard interval of time.

so, what was God referencing to, if not a standard interval of time?

Ciao

- viole

 

[robocop (actually)]

Many arguments here about the bible and creation are about "a day". We all only know the concept of "a day" as we live our lives here on earth.

How long was a day when the universe became the universe?

Genesis One: A physicist Looks at Creation
by Gerald Schroeder (Author), Zola Levitt (Author)

Claims that the Universe is simultaneously 15.75 billion years old and 6 days old.
The first day is 8 billion years, then 4 billion, and so on.

The reason it is measured both ways is that one way includes time dilation from an expanding Universe and one doesn't.
The verses in Genesis one fit well within the timeline.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't think so, you wrote:
God made us to live forever, and enjoy life forever, on his terms.
This was what I commented on, that not all people live enjoyable lives, so God's terms don't really seem to work for a lot of people.

Not following God's terms is what did Not work out enjoyable for sinner Satan
Not following God's terms is what did Not work out enjoyable for sinners Adam and Eve and Cain.
By following God's terms is what did work out for the apostles even during un-enjoyable times.
Paul was willing to suffer if need be to be a follower of Christ - Acts of the Apostles 9:15-15
Count the Christian terms according to Jesus at Luke 14:25-27,33 why? because you will be hated - Matthew 24:9; Luke 21:17
Even being hated to the point of facing untimely death - Revelation 12:11
God's terms is what I find works out in the long run - Jeremiah 29:11 - because of the enjoyable future hope.
The Resurrection Hope - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
In the meantime, by applying 'God's moral terms' they do or will work out because at Jesus' soon coming Glory Time the figurative 'sheep' can have 'enjoyable lives forever on Earth' because they are offered the same original offer that was presented to Adam and Eve to live forever on a beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden was a sample.
- Matthew 25:37

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So you say.As for “genesis”, little to none of it is true.So no.

I am wondering how you can prove that little to none of Genesis is true.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Electricity ends position electricity its highest healed earth moment says science. Is I want it. I want to invent it in free energy terms myself.
Free energy he says it's highest form.


Electricity didn't invent biology. It ends as just electricity.
Men think I want a constant replaced reacted body as calculus forces two ends to energy. For a man to get it. I want electricity.
For a machine non existing.
For a machine not reacting. No machine in electricity only thesis.
Thoughts of a scientist my machine mass sits in darkness yet it's cold and came from alight mass.
I want life for machines.
He theoried old science says they must have had resources to operate machines first.
The information said storage batteries clay pots first. Vats second science.
As an acidic type of energy storage supply.
For reactive machine science the machine has to be reactive alive...it came alive to function. Used battery powers.
Men quote I stopped paths in reactive energetic conversions to get what I want out of earths mass fused.
Which is his machine body.
Thesis says circuit thought about into mass machine body first to use its source ....then out of mass itself cold machine to inside the machine. Machines blow up...a collapsing causation.
Above theme to fall a collapsing activation says mind.
So pressures using Angles built temples and pyramid as above head scenario fell down collapsed pressures. So did the heavens above.
The teaching isn't about healing.
As ice came to earth first it snap froze stopped spirit gas CH methane exploding collapsing earths mass. Spirit body was leaving earths body.
Said science.
Saved healed God earth mass in fake terms earths mass the ice saviour. Saviour terms are not phi and not Jesus.

in a sense I can say 'free energy' (electricity) comes from God's Power Source (His holy spirit - Psalms 104:30)
In other words, as a Power Plant grid supplies the needed energy, so God supplies the needed energy for us.

 

[Audie]

I am wondering how you can prove that little to none of Genesis is true.

Nothing you don’t happen to like can be proved to you.

For those who use their brains, the flood, a biggie, is very readily
disproved.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Nothing you don’t happen to like can be proved to you.
For those who use their brains, the flood, a biggie, is very readily disproved.

Seems as if the insulting 'nothing you don't happen to like can be proved to you' really proves anything.
So, by saying the Bible writers did Not use their brains or how does one explain Bible harmony.
There are No eye witnesses to the Flood, but only the Bible's account.
Plus, all over the Earth there is the similar Flood legend. The harmonious earth-wide Flood legends indicate a flood.

 

[Audie]

Seems as if the insulting 'nothing you don't happen to like can be proved to you' really proves anything.
So, by saying the Bible writers did Not use their brains or how does one explain Bible harmony.
There are No eye witnesses to the Flood, but only the Bible's account.
Plus, all over the Earth there is the similar Flood legend. The harmonious earth-wide Flood legends indicate a flood.

It’s no insult, it’s what you and every creationist I’ve
encountered does. IF you prove me wrong I will be amazed.

Who knows who wrote the flood story, when or why.
Ignorant and superstitious times. They may have done their
best with available knowledge- something that todays
YEC certainly do not do.

Folk tales have little factual or historical value.
There are mermaids, Bigfoot, little people, dragons etc
through time and around the world. Floods too, though
I doubt you or any creationist around here has read any of them.

For centuries people believed in “ Hyperborea” a land beyond the polar pack ice.
Many died in expeditions to find this warm polar sea and trade with the people.

Its not much over a hundred years ago it was disproved.
Not by compsring myths and arguing, but by going to look.

Your even more absurd “flood” has been disproved longer
ago and in ten thousand ways. Educated people who
USE their brains have known that for well over a hundred years.

Why don’t you? Seriously! Is it because of what you termed “ an insult”?

 

[rational experiences]

in a sense I can say 'free energy' (electricity) comes from God's Power Source (His holy spirit - Psalms 104:30)
In other words, as a Power Plant grid supplies the needed energy, so God supplies the needed energy for us.

Man however didn't claim god is electricity.

Mass held is God. A body is a God fixed held said scientists. Only mass allows men to practice science as the destroyer of God.

Electricity is its beginning and end. So mass you require first is to be destroyed so you can get just what you want. Not body not mass just an equation.

An equation isn't a machine present. An equation says I just want electricity machine not included.

Men taught numbers came out of the wilderness...from within mass.

God supplied balances as nature.
God supplied all one highest substances of bio life supporting.

The destroyer sciences aren't doing God they perform satanisms.

Is why men of science claim Jesus from an alien status his machine theism..is actually mid thought it's without any machine. As all calculus applied is always no machine first.

Adam Jesus he says created first two human parents. As if life came from a sacrifice.

No he says ....as I thesis I keep changing use of themes stories variances to say Jesus was like Adam. It's the same story says a science theist first position..man thinking about science.

The history how a human is natural conscious life is highest first. Was taught the sciences and it was by Satan's cloud image burn fall only.

Brain change was not genesis change.

As DNA genesis human is a human. There is no topic without human owning genesis DNA human first.

Reason human sex only created by sex the human only act. Man adult baby theist of the sciences.

Ovary not a baby human. A woman can live with no man a whole life with no baby. Advised....sex owned you.

So first scientists learnt from Satan cloud burn fall above clouds due to star fall burn hit...unnatural light..increase of a sacrificed dust mass above...extra light.

In biology extra light doesn't support biology existing. Balances owned light. Even not Eve..

It's why we know our human parents aren't Adam and Eve...it's mans owned first scientific theisms. As his human experience consciousness changed.

You have to be living to get Sacrificed. Proving man tried to reduce his bio cell presence so it leeched out of his body as stigmata.

Perfume as cell loss of chemicals released blood out of cells. Is a bio attack.

Today science wants humans to believe being life sacrificed is to be with Jesus. And it's righteous by their say so. To own scientific known practice machines change bio heavens.

So when men say non stop resource....themed.... I must open a channel..I want it fixed held and not ended....as shut off. Energy being a reaction only. It doesn't meet the required theme Jesus...as it ended termed the Jesus attack.

Science says it wants God...non stop for a machine. For humanity it means no bio cell.

Men say that statement proves a human owned life cell by God. It doesn't.

Human man is first full human body mass cells. God is mass everywhere mass. All energy types various one masses never a man. God is mass.

Then man practices God science as man isn't a God he's just human.

What a human con is by science terms.

Electricity exact came out of two types of energy body masses. There isn't a third type said science. As natural light isn't extra light.

Natural light isn't electricity.

 

[We Never Know]

Perhaps the OP is a bit confused. Time does not rely on the spin of the Earth. Over short time spans, such as a human lifetime, or even the amount of time that man has been civilized, there has been no change in the length of a day that would be detectable to a man. So it appears to be a constant. But it is not. 4.5 billion years ago shortly after the Earth and Moon formed (we would have no idea at all of the rate of spin before the collision that likely formed the Moon) the rotation of the Earth was once ever 6 hours. If you were on the Earth and in a spacesuit you would have definitely noticed the difference. The rate of time would not be any different. The speed of the Sun across the sky would be roughly four times as fast.


For accurate time you would need an accurate metric. An atomic clock does not vary in speed (well aside from possible relativistic effects) That would always accurately reflect the passage of time you would sense if present.

Now this only gets us to the length a day about 4.55 billion years ago. The universe is more than twice that old. You cannot have an undefined "day" before the Earth was formed. Time would have still existed but the question about how long a day is becomes meaningless. Time itself would still be the same. Here is the problem, your question tells us that you know that the length of a day has varied. But it also seems that you think that the Earth has always existed and that is where this question goes off the rails since it has not. For two thirds of the universe's existence there was no Earth. It had no day length to measure.

Do you think "a day" didn't exist before earth?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Claims that the Universe is simultaneously 15.75 billion years old and 6 days old.

Both are incorrect. The age of the universe is established to be about 13.7 billion years old. Your source has gone rogue. But that's irrelevant. He could have used 13.7 billion years and made the same argument, namely, that scripture doesn't mean what it says. The reasons for that are that it has been disproven that from the birth of the universe to advent of man was six days. A person with no stake in those scriptures say, "Lookie there. They guessed wrong like every other creation story guessed wrong," whereas the man who has a stake in believing that the scriptures must be correct claims whatever he deems reconciles the discrepancy a fact, like this apologist. It's easily done if one allows words to mean whatever he wishes them to mean.

There is no reason to believe that a day in Genesis didn't mean 24 hours other than the fact that it is known that the evolution of the universe was much longer than six days. If that had not been ruled out empirically, it would undoubtedly still be taught as literal history just as it was undoubtedly taught until that was no longer tenable and is still taught in fundamentalist congregations.

The verses in Genesis one fit well within the timeline.

Not the scientific timeline. For starters, the scriptures contain two conflicting timelines, and both are incorrect according to the science. The Bible writers guessed, and they guessed wrong. It's a very human trait, as widespread as inventing gods and religions, which you probably call mythology when it's not your god and religion, as with the ancient Greeks, the Druids, and the Vikings. So do I, but I include ALL creation myths, not all but one like the believer.

Not following God's terms is what did Not work out enjoyable for sinner Satan

I don't get that. To my knowledge, there's no indication that Satan regretted getting out of heaven. According to the myth, he (and the other fallen angels) rejected heaven after seeing it. Why? What did they see? Why are they not trying to get back in? What's the appeal of praising a deity for eternity when you can be somewhere else doing something else? Who wants a Lord when he can be an autonomous agent? What's the appeal of being with submissive people who believe by faith rather than freethinkers? What makes any of that paradise?

Seems as if the insulting 'nothing you don't happen to like can be proved to you' really proves anything.

She's right. Proving, like all teaching, is a cooperative effort. Both teacher and student need to be critical thinkers, which means among other things being able to evaluate an argument for soundness and willing to be convinced by such an argument. One cannot convince another of that which he has a stake in not believing. This is why there is no burden of proof with faith-based thinkers who wear a confirmation bias that rejects arguments which conflict with what has chosen to believe is true by faith out of hand. The faith-based thinker asking for "proof" is gaslighting. Proof is not the currency for belief for him, but he wants you to think it is (gaslighting). Give him a link, and he doesn't look at it. He's also often sealioning - just making work for another as a deflection or a form of trolling (see Gish Gallop).

by saying the Bible writers did Not use their brains or how does one explain Bible harmony.

What Bible harmony? I'm assuming that you see Christian scripture as a rich, internally consistent, and flawless tapestry. I don't, nor do most other unbelievers. Those scriptures are replete with internal contradictions, and errors in science and history, hence all of the apologetics attempting to mitigate that. But they are ineffective on outsiders. One has to have a pro-Bible confirmation bias to call the Bible harmonious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think "a day" didn't exist before earth?

Not according to the definition implied in the OP. But you never properly defined "day". Your OP appeared to recognize the fact that the Earth rotated more rapidly in the past so that days were shorter. A day based upon the daily rotation of the Earth could not exist before the Earth existed. That sort of day is a variable and not a constant. If the Earth does not exist then the standard for that definition of day has to be undefined, or in practical terms, it would not exist.

If you base your definition of "day" upon the length of today's day then that would be a constant that could be said to have always existed. But when one bases it upon the physical rotation of a body, if that body does not exist that value is undefined.