Not at all what?
You have the facts and there is much more.
Oh do tell, what "facts" are those exactly other than the 'fact' that my 8 year old daughter would put up a more supported debate than you clearly can?
I don't understand exactly what you think you have managed to argue with any decent level of competence.
You claim that the biblical writers did not mean 'day' when they used the word day. The evidence against your claim is that those same biblical writers informed the reader that to them a day constituted a period of time from one sunrise to the next sunrise. This is accepted as a 'day' even by modern standards - and it is absolutely impossible to support your claim that the biblical writers at that time meant anything other than a 24 hour period.
Now, perhaps you're getting confused. The world and universe could have been 'created' in 6 nanoseconds or 6 gazillion years, or - and more likely - not at all. The point of discussion is not how long it took, if indeed creation ever happened, but what the biblical writers meant with the word day - and it is simply undeniable given the text to claim they meant anything other than a 'day' as we understand the word. They are saying, wrong or not, that god took 6 days, (24 hour periods), to create what he created.
Never saw anything state that it rained for 40,000 years.
You're right. Day means day. Glad we have finally established that.
However I have proven to you that a "day" meaning is not regulated to a mere 24 hour period.
No disrespect Saquist, but if you think repeating a claim over and over is "proof", then you're really not ready for large scale debates - or any debates for that matter. The word 'day' in genesis refers to a day as we understand the word- which is shown beyond any doubt whatsoever because each 'day' stems from one sunrise to the next. That
is a day. It is nothing else.. it's not a week, it's not a month, it's not a year.
I don't see how it would change your perspective there are many occasions in which a day was not actually a day. But You've rejected all these in order to focus specificly on 24 hours despite evidence to the contrary.
1) Rejected all of what? You haven't given me anything other than a basless claim. Oh, aside from telling me that at the end of creation it says 7 days took 1 day - which it doesn't.
2) What evidence? For one last time: Your say so is
not evidence, your continual repetition of a claim is
not evidence, or proof, or fact. You need to learn this quick time.
The question is...the time which transpired for the Earth's formation likely would have been so long it would have lacked any significant meaning.
Of course the earths formation took a long damn time, that is not the debate.
Rather the Bible has presented the Earth construction in 6 periods of time which are regarded as days
Those days being 24 hour periods. What is you don't understand? :shrug:
There is more than enough evidence to suggest that it was not litteral.
Yesssssssssssss, you keep telling me this. So, where is it? Get on with it already, I'll be dead in 100 years time.
Yet again I must ask...to what end?
To uhh... support a claim that you made lol.
Oh no, Snakelord let that be your arguement, not mine.
Uhh.. it
was your argument.
Thus far you've been completely dismissive of every bit of information I dispense.
Come now, I keep asking you to provide evidence but you seemingly want me to just accept a baseless claim. Come on Saquist, this is not how debates work.
I...suspect...You don't wish to allow the scriptures to be correct in any capacity. That's unfortunant if it's true.
Without wanting to point out the blatantly obvious:
YOU are the one saying that scripture is not correct lol - indeed accusing me of taking it
too correctly.
Have you come to this debate while still sleeping?
Give me a good reaons why...my claim needs to be verified by you.
Oh right, you're unaware of how these things work. Ok, let me spell it out to you: When you go about making a claim to someone it is standard procedure that they ask for some verification to your claim. For instance:
I claim that there is a leprechaun in my garage. You now seemingly assert that you should just accept this claim as true - simply on the basis that I've claimed it. Surely even someone unfamiliar with how debate works should recognise a problem with that?
I never put any number on the creative days.
You did indeed, stating that we are still on day 7, (which means these days must actually be longer than 1 day - in fact quite a bit more than 1 day as we understand the word).
Yes that would be litteral.
As I've explained...there is no reason to believe these are litteral days.
Other than the fact that it explains them as being from one sunrise to the next. Go figure.. :bugeye:
There's no denying fact...The day of rest is indeed the Seventh Day.
Yessssss... where did anyone say otherwise? Kindly quote the comment. Thanks.
I can't assert anything.I must defer to the scritpures which say it is so.
So if you must, then do so already. Seems like a reasonable idea.. But wait..
I'd have to look it up to give you details...but I'm not inclined to do so.
Oops. Ok then.. :shrug:
The creative days were heavenly acts...It was not a man's creation...therefore the only contradiction is your own.
1) Do you even know what contradiction means? If so how have you managed to fit it in that sentence?
2) So now you change details. Your original claim was that '6' was a sign of imperfection. You never mentioned anything about it only being so with regards to "human creation" - whatever that might mean. In either case I don't see how you support a claim that 6 is a sign of imperfection. The notion is dumb, no offence.
Now.. If you don't want to support your claims and instead think it is sufficient merely to waffle the same claim over and over and over then fine.. But go do that with someone more in tune with such a style of debate, namely a 3 year old. I hope that's understood.
