Do you believe that our universe was created in six days?

Hi again, There's a good deal of info available now which demonstrates that the Sun's surface beneath it's glowing atmosphere is quite static and solid, complete with mountain ranges and rifts and valleys (the tiniest of which could easily swallow up the entire Earth). Courtesy in the main from NASA satellite imagery, which you can easily hunt down on the Internet. There's actually also a few good sites which go into the subject in some detail (which I don't have up my sleeve just now - displaced whilst reconfiguring PCs etc). But as you might guess, it's not getting any airplay. Too much invested in the mainstream view of things in all the Universities. As regards the subject of mythology, I'm happy to refer to the "Story of Evolution" if you like, but as I indicated before, I personally don't adhere to either side of that particular religious debate. It appears to me that both religions have equivalent bodies of evidence to support their views. That's a large part of what I can see as the problem with much of "science" today - the unquestioning belief of its practitioners in the approved tenets, which in any other context would clearly be acts of faith in the dogmatic doctrine of a religion. Do you recall what used to be the prevailing dogma surrounding the dinosaurs - that they were big, slow-witted, cold-blooded behemoths that couldn't even get walking until the Sun heated them up for a few hours? The people who challenged those (patently absurd) beliefs were treated terribly by the "scientific" community, until now some decades later our ideas about the dinosaurs probably comes closer to the reality. Evolution is another of those "scientific" dogmas that brands any "unbeliever" as a "Creationist", ie, the opposing religion. I don't choose to accept either of these points of view, because neither story has sufficient merit to convince me... nor should you or anyone else unless you believe that you have good reason to. It's up to you as to what you consider to be sufficiently good reasons to demand that you accept a particular story as being true. Here's another couple of spanners to throw in the works of mainstream "science" - first, pretty much all of present cosmological science has been built on the foundation of the Red Shift Theory (theory, not fact) which says that light from distant stars is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum owing to the Doppler Effect, which means that those stars are moving away from us. And no matter which direction we look, the stars are moving away from us - moreover, the further away they are, the faster they appear to be moving away from us (according to the Red Shift Theory). Which all leads us to the Big Bang Theory, wherein supposedly some time ago everything in the Universe was compressed into a teensy little point that somehow exploded into what we now see spread out before us today. But there's a problem - a teensy weensy problem, to be sure, but a significant problem, nonetheless... stars have been found with red shifts that place them behind galaxies which they are actually in front of... it doesn't work... and there are OTHER explanations for why the light from stars seems to be shifted to the red end of the spectrum, none of which requie al the stars in the universe to be speeding away from us, and which therefore also don't require a Big Bang... So what if there was NO Big Bang? That would be a disaster for academia, because just about everything to do with cosmological science (and all those many many billions of dollars of government grants, and all those esteemed centers of learning together with the numerous very lucrative faculty careers) has been built, layer upon layer upon layer, on that central uncompromising dogma of "The Big Bang". Let's be honest here, "The Big Bang" isn't something that's intuituve or that anyone in their right mind would naturally come to think or expect about the Universe. It's an article of religious faith taught by the temples of "science" - a mantra that's been repeated so widely and so often that now it's an unquestioned article of faith. And there's a reasonable chance, from what I've seen, that it's completely wrong. The second item that might interest inquisitive minds is the Martian landscape as presented by NASA's rovers, those two heroic robots trundling back and forth across the Martian surface for so man months (now quite a few years, in fact). Both these little machines have a color calibration chart affixed to their little metal butts, right next to their color video cameras, in order to assist with the proper adjustment of the colors in the video images transmitted back from their location. As clearly shown on a few web-sites, the images released by NASA which showed the red Martian landscape under a red Martian sky were actually distorted. When adjusted to bring their colors back to the correct range (as per the color calibration chart visible in each image) then the sky turned blue. Which means either that the little Martian Rovers aren't really on Mars, or there's something about Mars that we're not being told. One or the other. Which one, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were both trundling around the Nevada desert the whole time. Or Mars might have a much different atmosphere to what we're being told. I'm really not suspicious, or into conspiracy theories. But I do know that "science" as practiced in most nations of the world is a thoroughly human activity governed by incorrigible and very bureaucratic institutions, more often than not under the complicating influences of private and corporate vested interests. And humans, being a herding species, are collectively so thoroughly suggestible and so easily manipulated.

Could you explain your reasoning behind your description of the sun? And please, I don't call OT stories myths, so don't call something I 'believe' and have been brought up to 'believe' a myth. It's just insulting.

"the myth of Evolution" This is as goofy* a statement as "the myth of magnetism". I have a feeling it won't get any better. I like how you say this: "what most of us accept as "science" is actually just a pagan religion masquerading as science." And back it up with an unsupported assertion: "The truth is that the Sun (and presumably all stars) is solid - a very big, very black, very very solid ball." The truth? According to what? Where's your evidence? Clearly you have no idea what science is or how it's done. "Try telling that to 99.999% of "scientists", and they'll take you outside and burn you at the stake." No, they'll ask for evidence. When you inevitably go on a conspiracy theory rant instead of providing it (as you have done here), they will ignore you, and rightly so. "God is God. All time and space, and everything beyond, is His creation and His to do with as He pleases." Wow, what a scientific statement! Clearly, a barrage of unsupported assertions is how Real Science™ is done! ...yeah, now I'm sure you have no idea what "science" even means. "If He said that He made the world in 6 days, then I'm not going to contest it." Of course, you can't even prove that God exists, much less that he was any way involved in the writing of Genesis. All you have is the book's assertion of its own authority, and God-inspired status. And this is more convincing to you than the entire body of science, backed with evidence, that is successfully applied every single day by scientific communities all around the world? How much more obvious could your bias be? "when it comes to deciding between human "science" and Divine Revelation, I'll never willingly default to the human view of things" The funny thing is that you unwittingly already have--you've submitted yourself to a man-made religion (that makes no sense, for crying out loud, by the way). Proof of your brainwashing is evident in you seriously thinking that Genesis is a history manual of existence. According to Genesis, plants existed before the sun--yeeah, uh huh, okay. You go on thinking that. Any god who knew anything wouldn't do something that stupid. "I already know that so much of human "science" is just self-serving nonsense." You've already proven you don't even know what "science" even really means, so I don't think you're qualified to make a judgment like that. *Given the undeniable fact that modern vaccines (in fact, all of modern biology/medicine) are created through direct reliance of our knowledge of evolution, I'd like for you to explain how vaccines exist if evolution doesn't. It's like saying hydrogen is a myth while standing in a puddle of water (H2O). P.S. The sun is not gas; it is plasma.

I believe that also. But, is it possible that God used symbolic words for talking to us?

In Genesis, it's not God saying, "I created the world in six days" The writer who had a 24 hour concept of a day is the one who informs us that God created the world in six days. Let's say we both live in the U.S and I tell you that according to weatherman it's going to be only 32 degrees tomorrow in your city. There would be no reason for you to assume that I meant in degrees Celsius. Unless, I'm deliberately trying to confuse you, I'm going to take in to account that the you are going to understand 32 degrees as 32 Fahrenheit. Note that before 1958 the world was supposedly 3 billion years old. Not it's 4.5. Just give them about 50 more years and the number will probably double.

god is not limited by mans time after all our time is a man made thing he does not need it

I think that it's necessary to distinguish between religious belief and "rational" belief. as far as religion goes, the ancient Egyptians certainly believed that the world was flat. at the same time, there where probably Egyptian thinkers who knew from observation, that the world was not flat. Greek scientists over 2000 years ago certainly knew that the world was round, but that knowledge was lost or ignored after the collapse of the classical civilisations and the rise of the suffocating hand of Christianity which thought that only the literal word of the bible was true and all else was heresy. Even as late as the 17th century the Christian church was trying to suppress scentific facts that dot not agree with there accepted dogma.

The idea that the world is flat is actually a relatively new one. The Ancient Egyptians would have laughed at our Medieval friends for even considering the world might be flat. Any nation with a navy, merchant or offensive (so, that's every nation with a coast) knew the world was not flat, that it at least has some curvature to it. Watch a ship with a mast travel out to sea, watch the mast as it disappears over the horizon. It sinks; clear evidence that the world is curved. This is how the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians... and a plethora of other ancient peoples knew the world was not flat. Everything else you said, fine... but that the world is flat; Columbus was not the first (and he actually believed it was pear shaped *sigh*).

Adoniah Adoniah Adoniah, Ye of little faith! To God, anything is possible - even if it's beyond our paltry ability to grasp. I personally don't accept ANY position on these things, and no-one actually has to take a position if they don't want to. I'll dismiss certain scenarios from further consideration if the evidence gives me reason to - but nothing passed down either through the Bible or Tradition falls into that category. Here's a couple of thoughts to consider - and they're just thoughts, no-one has to pick them up or test them, but it might spark something for someone out there. What if all this "carbon dating" guff was a load of self-serving hogwash, and both it and all the related dating methods were rigged to give paleontologists the answers that they wanted? People have a funny way of doing that. Or what if the underlying assumptions upon which these dating methods are based are so off the mark that it's all up the creek? If all the dinosaurs and other critters were stomping around just a few thousand years ago, that wouldn't cause me any particular consternation. I'd be a bit disappointed in missing out on seeing them, but perhaps not so sad about having to dodge the Velociraptors on the way to school. Maybe Fred Flinstone's not such a fantasy. There are just too many things we don't know, and so much of what we think we know is built on a house of straw. Our centers of learning construct (fabricate) whatever history is required to satisfy our cultural preconceptions. BUT we have other sources of knowledge, other sources of info. Tradition is a good thing. Did you know that just about every indigenous culture throughout the world has legends of a great flood? Even the Koori tribes of Australia (where a giant frog named Frogzilla or something dropped his guts one day and flooded the entire landscape). (Don't even get me started on the Big Bang Theory - I'm a Class A Heretic on that subject.) So Tradition is great - word of mouth, eye-witness accounts passed down through generations, uncensored by organized interests. The written record is pretty useful too. You speak of the Torah - if it says 6,000 years, why argue with that? You can grow a lot of chickens in 6,000 years, and a lot of things can happen in that time. Not that it's necessarily so - but to dismiss the notion closes the door on a possible avenue to the Truth. I also reckon it's worthwhile consulting the Mystics on the subject, seeing as how the best of them have a window through the passing mists of time. It seems that before the Great Flood, the world was an entirely different place to what it is now - who knows what went on before that? Anyway, having an open mind really gives a lot of freedom to see things that other people might have closed their eyes and their minds to. It's always worth a try, but just be careful not to tell anyone, or there's a good chance they'll try to kill you (as herding species generally do).