- Mar 15, 2017
Except, the sun being older than the earth is almost factual because the two have to have been one at a certain stage. There can be alternatives but some things don't change. Earth can not be flat, the moon can not be a hologram and earth can not be older than the sun.Science is predicated upon observation and experimentation in the present. In terms of age, we can neither observe the past nor experiment on the past because it is gone. About the best we can do scientifically, is make some assumptions about the initial state of the system whose age we want to know, and some assumptions about the rate of change of that system, and make an estimate based on our observations of the current state. Since the different assumptions involve past events (supernatural creation vs natural origin, uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism) they cannot be directly tested by scientific means since the past cannot be experimented upon or observed. I'm not saying I discard the secular science, just saying that I leave room for alternatives.
The very existence of plants today show that they exist because of oxygen and couldn't have existed without it, and we know for a fact that earth's atmosphere is maintained through its spin. No gravitational pull = no rotation = no atmosphere.
This is a massive room to leave for alternatives. And putting a "holy scripture" over evidence and basic knowledge, in my opinion, is very stupid. If i am going to leave such a massive room for change to fit things into Bible, why not other scriptures? Why not Mahabharat, vedas etc?
How would I be different from the people who worship such things?
Shouldn't the entire story of Abraham be a lesson? If we are going to believe blindly in a faith and put evidence aside, we are no different than the people who refused to believe Abraham who spoke with logic just because they had "faith" in their sun gods.
This would be accurate if we were talking about stopping the rotation but we aren't talking about stopping it, we are talking about its beginning.Why not? Scientifically, the gravitational forces of the sun and moon have nothing to do with the rotation rate of earth. The rotation rate is due to the conservation of angular momentum. It cannot be changed without applying an enormous external torque. And there is absolutely no biblical or scientific support for such a torque. This is the rotational equivalent of Newton’s first law. So the sun and moon are not necessary to cause the earth to rotate. It would have rotated perfectly well before the creation of the sun and moon. And I did put in my initial reply that the Earth may have already been set on its rotation by Day 2.
Earth didn't just form and start spinning and then the sun formed. The nebula collapsed, the sun was formed and started spinning and then the debris formed earth that also started spinning (along with the other planets). It WAS the sun's gravitational pull that brought all the debris; dust and particles together to form planets including the earth.
You can't skip 10 steps and start solving the equation from 11th one. You can't ignore what brought about the earth's spin in the first place and then talk about whats keeping it going.
Are you sure? Especially when you know Plants came first and then came the sun when the sun is clearly older than the lifeless earth. An earth that finally had the conditions to support life came even later.I don't think it is.
Hypothesis are not theories, a scientific theory is not a hypothesis. The man keeps giving hypothesis but can't back them up, that is, if anything, just sad.The implications of Dr Russell Humphries alternative cosmology
"The time on earth was 6 days while 15 billion years everywhere else" Why 6 days? Because Bible says so? lol why not 7 or 8 or 5 or 10?