@Lee --
Perhaps you should pick up a book on string theory and read it before you go bandying about theories that you demonstrably don't even have the barest understanding of. I recommend Brian Green's The Elegant Universe, it's a wonderfully engaging book that covers the basics of relativity, string theory, and M-theory.
String theory can be hard to understand for physicists and even more so for laymen like you and I(from what I've read the calculations involved are so complex that we can't fully complete them as of yet), it's best to go to the source of the information which means going to the scientists who are actually working in that field.
It's clear from this that you don't even know what those words mean. Might I recommend that you do your homework before you debate with people who've been doing this for years. Agnosticism is the philosophical position that we can't or don't know something(depending on whether you're dealing with strong or weak agnosticism). Atheism is the position of either not believing in god or believing that god doesn't exist(again, depending on what brand of atheist you're dealing with).
But I have news for you, you won't find very many strong atheists in the world, they're incredibly rare.
Ugh, you haven't been at this very long, have you? The argument of "what does a day mean to god" is an amateurish argument that's irrelevant as we've already covered that.
If the bible was written by humans(as all of the evidence suggests) then it was done so using human standards as is evident from the text in question. The word used could have possibly meant "an undetermined period of time" but we know that it doesn't through context clues like the constant use of "morning" and "evening" in the relevant passages. Thus, the text means "a twenty four hour day".
If the text was written by god directly then he would have known that writing it from his perspective would not have worked as he knew that he was writing it for humans and would have translated accordingly, hence the reference points of "morning" and "evening" in the text. No matter which way you slice it, you can't logically argue your way out of this.
The rest of your second post is an irrelevant string of unsupported assertions resting on an undemonstrated premise.
Perhaps you should pick up a book on string theory and read it before you go bandying about theories that you demonstrably don't even have the barest understanding of. I recommend Brian Green's The Elegant Universe, it's a wonderfully engaging book that covers the basics of relativity, string theory, and M-theory.
String theory can be hard to understand for physicists and even more so for laymen like you and I(from what I've read the calculations involved are so complex that we can't fully complete them as of yet), it's best to go to the source of the information which means going to the scientists who are actually working in that field.
It's clear from this that you don't even know what those words mean. Might I recommend that you do your homework before you debate with people who've been doing this for years. Agnosticism is the philosophical position that we can't or don't know something(depending on whether you're dealing with strong or weak agnosticism). Atheism is the position of either not believing in god or believing that god doesn't exist(again, depending on what brand of atheist you're dealing with).
But I have news for you, you won't find very many strong atheists in the world, they're incredibly rare.
Ugh, you haven't been at this very long, have you? The argument of "what does a day mean to god" is an amateurish argument that's irrelevant as we've already covered that.
If the bible was written by humans(as all of the evidence suggests) then it was done so using human standards as is evident from the text in question. The word used could have possibly meant "an undetermined period of time" but we know that it doesn't through context clues like the constant use of "morning" and "evening" in the relevant passages. Thus, the text means "a twenty four hour day".
If the text was written by god directly then he would have known that writing it from his perspective would not have worked as he knew that he was writing it for humans and would have translated accordingly, hence the reference points of "morning" and "evening" in the text. No matter which way you slice it, you can't logically argue your way out of this.
The rest of your second post is an irrelevant string of unsupported assertions resting on an undemonstrated premise.
