What would happen if the earth stopped rotating?

Author: RoderickSpode ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 40
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    Without going into detail, we all know it would result in disaster. If that happened as read in Joshua 10:12-14, we wouldn't be here right now.

    Joshua 10:12-14 New International Version (NIV)
    12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

    “Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
        and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

    13 So the sun stood still,

        and the moon stopped,
        till the nation avenged itself on[a] its enemies,

    as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
    The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

    There are a number of theories (the NASA missing day, an eclipse, different culture's reciting a similar event, poetic language). And of course each have their problems.


    I don't actually see a real problem at all.

    A friend of mine sometimes uses a term kairos (or kairos moment). The biblical meaning being

    In Christian theology
    In the New Testament, "kairos" means "the appointed time in the purpose of God," the time when God acts (e.g. Mark 1:15: the kairos is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand).


    I experienced something unusual upon my conversion. I was actually in the apartment I was living in, and for some reason I tried to convince myself that the Gospel is not true. I had been an agnostic all my life. I found that I could not do it. I didn't proclaim belief there, but decided to hike up a hill I often did for exercise at the edge of town. When I got to the top, it was there I made my proclamation of faith/belief. At about that point, my surrounding as I remember may have appeared brighter than usual, but more than that in the sky I saw a vision of Christ that lingered for quite awhile. I was filled with extreme joy. The hike up to the top of the hill was fairly long and steep enough to require utilizing a lot of energy. It would generally result in sweating, and feeling like you jogged something along the lines of a 10k. It seemed however that there was no effort in hiking back down. The hike up seemed effortless as well. The feeling was more like I floated. Time seemed insignificant.


    But more than all of that, as adrenaline rushes can answer for something like that, the blissful feeling and the vision I had is what was particularly astounding. It was way out of the norm. I believe it was a kairos moment for me. A situation where an outside (of our dimension) agent (Jesus) intervened into my (created) world. And for those around me either on the trail or the nearby city, nothing unusual happened. God was able to limit the
    kairos moment to myself.

    To give a simplistic example, a fish in a human made fishbowl can only eat what is contained in it's small/confined world. Unless something from nothing (food) manifests, that fish will die if all that's in it's world is water, sand, and a seashell. So the fish needs an outside agent (of it's tiny world) to intervene by dropping fish food into the bowl. The fish doesn't doesn't know where the food came from. And if all that existed was it's tiny world,
    there would be no avenue for obtaining food.

    It's common for people to look for scientific evidence for events in the bible which is great (like the flood covering the earth in Genesis). In this case, I would like to steer the event recorded in Joshua to the event in the book of Luke where a mob attempted to throw Jesus off a cliff. As you may recall, it was not successful. As described, Jesus simply walked right through them. I've never heard any attempts to explain this one on natural terms. I can't even imagine what that would look like. I might call the event a kairos moment. An appointed time where God manipulated the environs of a
    small location (the area of the cliff) that somehow allowed Jesus to walk through a mob that intended, and should have had the ability, to throw him off a cliff.


    I would argue that the event in Joshua was a similar kairos moment. An appointed time where God intervened as an outside agent that affected those within a certain geographical location, like the fishbowl, my faith/belief conversion that only I experienced, Paul's incident on the road to Damascus that affected him and those following him, Jesus' cliff incident that affected him and the mob, and all those on the battlefield in the book of Joshua.

    I believe these are instances where God somehow extends His timeless realm into ours allowing us to get a tiny glimpse of what his heaven/kingdom is like. I would go as far as to say everyone experiences a small taste of heaven on Christmas day. I don't think it's a coincidence many depictions of
    Christmas in art consists of snow. The cheerful beautiful sight of white snow, a humble cabin, peacefulness, etc. It's a day where many are more generous than usual (although it should be that way everyday). It's a holiday where two opposing armies during WWI stopped fighting, and broke bread together. I don't know if that's the only time that has happened. But I think we have to admit that something like that is way out of the norm.

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @RoderickSpode
    The kairos moment you describe, and I agreer with you that it is a possible moment to experience, can happen whether alone, or in a crowd. I know precisely of what you speak. Try this, and see if it does not describe your experience: 
    "And when ye shall receive these things [whatever you may be seriously pondering, looking for answers], I would export you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true, and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, having real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye shall know the truth of all things."

    This is a formula, as dependable as math, to use whenever there is doubt, and desire to know, By following each step in the formula, faithfully, and in faith, each and every step, the desire for knowledge of a thing will be given. Doesn't matter of you are looking for the truth of the Gospel, or an answer to a physics question, or how to boil water, or cook a gourmet dinner. God desires that we obtain a knowledge of the truth, and has given us the formula, and the experience of the revelation is a kairos moment. You're on the right track. Keep asking.
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @fauxlaw
    Yes! Absolutely! And I'm glad you mentioned this.

    And your post made me think of George Washington Carver who did ask understanding from God, which resulted in him discovering further usefulness for the peanut.

    And it makes me wonder what would happen if there was a general consensus among the scientific community to seek knowledge from the creator concerning some of the mysteries we universally face.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,880
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @RoderickSpode
    The problem with Science and the Bible is that Ancient people who wrote the book dont know the science, for example- on the day Jesus died there was a lunar eclipse with turns the moon red.


    The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
    They are describing a lunar eclipse which can be traced to very second and minute with basic math thousands of years in the future.

    However, they don't say it was a lunar eclipse, they say it will be turned to blood, which isn't scientific but ancient people though that

    But Some atheists think this is an error because the moon can't turn to blood but it is really just the lunar eclipse

    Also, take any verse about science in the Bible-it is not trying to make a scientific claim but it makes a different point

    “Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
        and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

    13 So the sun stood still,

        and the moon stopped,
        till the nation avenged itself on[a] its enemies,
    This is not trying to make a scientific claim but to illustrate a point of God's wrath, so nobody should take it as scientific
  • Tee_Wrex
    Tee_Wrex avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5
    0
    0
    0
    Tee_Wrex avatar
    Tee_Wrex
    The problem with Science and the Bible is that Ancient people who wrote the book dont know the science, for example- on the day Jesus died there was a lunar eclipse with turns the moon red.
    But surely if, as is claimed by Christians, the Bible is the word of God the authors would have quoted the scientific processes that God undertook in order to create the universe.

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Tee_Wrex
    Why would the numerous writers of biblical scrolls need to have quoted the scientific process of anything, let alone just Moses describing the creation. Genesis is a description of creation from a geocentric perspective, which is one perspective, but we know it to be flawed by thinking we, on the outpost of earth, are ubiquitously central, So, God did positively not give a scientific expose to Moses. No, the science was far less urgent to be known than was that the creation happened at all. God was teaching the why, not the how.
  • T_Recks
    T_Recks avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 10
    0
    0
    0
    T_Recks avatar
    T_Recks
    --> @fauxlaw
    Why would the numerous writers of biblical scrolls need to have quoted the scientific process of anything
    To give their story credibility of course. 

    But let's not beat about the bush. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that validates any of their bizarre stories and would give any sane person any reason to believe them.
    There is absolutely no authentication whatsoever of any of the processes as described in the Bible.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @T_Recks @Willows
    To give their story credibility of course. 
    Lol! The story conquered the world loser, credibility is one thing it didn't lack.

    But let's not beat about the bush. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that validates any of their bizarre stories and would give any sane person any reason to believe them.
    And yet it became, and remains the dominant religion on Earth for hundreds of years! History and reality call you a deluded fool.

    There is absolutely no authentication whatsoever of any of the processes as described in the Bible.
    And yet you're the minority fringe position, creating sock puppets to spam stupidity over and over.

    The one with the credibility problem is you loser. You are a troll that projects his loser status on the bible.

    Nothing you can say overcomes your insane behavior.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @T_Recks
    There is absolutely no authentication whatsoever of any of the processes as described in the Bible.

    One should not need to have Scientific American prove the Bible any more than one should need the Bible to prove Scientific American. Do we ask Geology to prove Etymology? Or Astronomy to prove Sociology? Do we even ask Entymology to prove Cuisine? Do we ask Origin of the Species to prove Gone With the Wind? Self-evidence is the key. If it can do it, fine. If not, do not look for a silk purse to be stuffed in a sow's ear.
  • Tyrano_R
    Tyrano_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 9
    0
    0
    0
    Tyrano_R avatar
    Tyrano_R
    --> @fauxlaw
    One should not need to have Scientific American prove the Bible any more than one should need the Bible to prove Scientific American. Do we ask Geology to prove Etymology? Or Astronomy to prove Sociology? Do we even ask Entymology to prove Cuisine? Do we ask Origin of the Species to prove Gone With the Wind? Self-evidence is the key. If it can do it, fine. If not, do not look for a silk purse to be stuffed in a sow's ear.
    But we have asked those who preach the innaccuracies of the Bible to authenticate the nonsense they say and to date nobody has been able to do so. Nevertheless science has completely overturned much of what the Bible says. For example, the age of the earth is calculated from the Bible to be about 6000 years. Accurate and irrefutable scientific research dates the earth as being 11.5 billion years old.

    Also, the stories of creation as told in the Bible have been completely overturned and proven wrong through the science of evolution through natural selection.

    And what scientific findings have ever been overturned through Biblical writings?
    Abolutely none.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Tyrano_R
    For example, the age of the earth is calculated from the Bible to be about 6000 years. 

    For example, the Bible has obvious time gaps in its chronology. In Hebrew, the given word that is translated to "day" is יום [yom], which is better translated as a period of time of undefined length. https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/definition/day.htm So, the notion that creation occupied six 24-hour periods is not a proper understanding of the Torah.
    We have, therefore, no idea how long a period was in between the "5th day" and the 6th. Nor have we any idea of the length of time occupied by Adam's creation, and Eve's. Nor do we know the length of time Adam and Eve spent in Eden before Eve partook of the tree of knowledge, nor how long it was between that event and their banishment from Eden.
    How long, then, between their banishment and Cain's birth, and then Abel's?
    In the exhaustive list of generations of begets, there are generational gaps; several of them. How many and for how long in time, we do not know. 
    The claim of a 6,000 year-old earth ignores every one of these gaps. One cannot just ignore them and pretend they do not exist because a careful read will identify every one of them. Why didn't God just fill in these gaps? One, He did not write one jot or tittle of the text. Men did. Men of innumerable count, write, re-wrote, transliterated, and translated the texts we have today. How many mistakes establish a meaning timeline.? What the bloody hell does it matter, after all?
  • ATroubledMan
    ATroubledMan avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 200
    0
    1
    2
    ATroubledMan avatar
    ATroubledMan
    If the Earth stopped rotating, we would all be flung to the East at somewhere between 300 and 1000 mph, followed by the oceans, the atmosphere and anything else not grounded to the Earth. It would be total and complete destruction on a global scale and no one would survive.
  • Tyran_R
    Tyran_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 7
    0
    0
    0
    Tyran_R avatar
    Tyran_R
    --> @fauxlaw
    In the exhaustive list of generations of begets, there are generational gaps; several of them. How many and for how long in time, we do not know. 
    The claim of a 6,000 year-old earth ignores every one of these gaps. One cannot just ignore them and pretend they do not exist because a careful read will identify every one of them.

    If there are generational gaps (for which you are very vague about) we are looking at a difference between 6000 years and 11.5 billion years.
    Come on, a year is a year is a year and trying to stretch out 6000 years to 11.5 billion years is totally absurd.

    The Bible got it horribly wrong and making up weak excuses hardly mitigates the fact, does it?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Tyran_R
    The Bible got it horribly wrong and making up weak excuses hardly mitigates the fact, does it?
    Vague? Did you read my post, allowing that creation itself, in the ancient Hebrew, does not equate "day" to a 24-hour period, but periods of undermined length? Potentially several billion earth years? Did I not say we don't know how long Adam spent in the garden before Eve's creation? The duration of Adam and Eve in Eden?  The duration of that sojourn from her creation to eating of the tree of knowledge? Would you like another biliion years for those activities? Less? Take them. The Bible does not stipuate, and I see no reason to assume it was all done in 6,000 years. How vague is that? 

  • ATroubledMan
    ATroubledMan avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 200
    0
    1
    2
    ATroubledMan avatar
    ATroubledMan
    --> @fauxlaw
    We have, therefore, no idea how long a period was in between the "5th day" and the 6th.
    Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't each day of creation in Genesis followed by this phrase: "And there was evening, and there was morning"?

    Wouldn't this signify that a day was approximately a 24 hour period?
  • Tyran_R
    Tyran_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 7
    0
    0
    0
    Tyran_R avatar
    Tyran_R
    --> @fauxlaw
    The Bible does not stipuate, and I see no reason to assume it was all done in 6,000 years. How vague is that? 
    The Bible does so stipulate and the denial of such has been attempted by creationists time and again.

    In fact the Bible quite clearly stipulates that the entire universe was created in 6 days.

    And if you are now trying to brush off some bizarre story that it took Eve a million years to pick an apple, then another say, billion years to cook an apple pie, we are surely dealing with shear lunacy here.

    Fact: the world is 11.5 years old, the first forms of human life is about a million years.
    Fact: the Bible got it horribly wrong.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @ATroubledMan
    An evening and morning of a "day" of what perspective? Go 488M miles away from the sun, to Jupiter, a "day" is 9 hours. 100M toward the sun, to Mercury, there really is no evening and morning, at all. Same for our Moon, just 240K mies away. On earth, it's 12 hours, not even 24, isn't it? So, why are you so hung up on time, anyway? Time is relative according to Einstein's relativity, so... whose wrong? Jupiter, Mercury, the Moon, the Earth, or the Bible, or all or none of them? And who gives a flying qw5ejf9vne anyway? If you're going to let a calendar rule your creation argument, you have bigger problems than missing a few days, or ten billion of them.
  • ATroubledMan
    ATroubledMan avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 200
    0
    1
    2
    ATroubledMan avatar
    ATroubledMan
    --> @fauxlaw
    An evening and morning of a "day" of what perspective?
    It should be obvious, the perspective of the people who read it, humans on Earth, of course.

    So, why are you so hung up on time, anyway?
    No one is hung up on time, the words are there to read as they should be in order to explain what has happened. 

    And who gives a flying qw5ejf9vne anyway? If you're going to let a calendar rule your creation argument, you have bigger problems than missing a few days, or ten billion of them.
    It isn't a calendar, it's the passing of a single day on Earth, a morning and an evening. This should be clear as day to anyone reading it.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @ATroubledMan

    It isn't a calendar, it's the passing of a single day on Earth, a morning and an evening. This should be clear as day to anyone reading it.

    The passing of a single day, when? I joked that an evening and morning are but twelve hours, because you don't have either the afternoon or pre-dawn counted. Joking, because I forgot the following from Scientific American of June, 2010: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-rotation-summer-solstice/ which asks the question [in the title of the article] "The Days [and Nights] are Getting Longer." According to it, 620M years ago, the earth day was 21.9 hours, and the extension of the earth day is increasing, currently, by 0.0017 hours per century. That's 45,000 centuries, assuming the earth is 4.5B years old. However, there's a flaw in that calculation. The article also says "Earth's day–night cycle—one rotation on its axis—is growing longer year by year, and has been for most of the planet's history." If the earth has lost 2.1 hours in just 620M years, and the earth is 4.5B years of age, what's the total loss by an even linear regression? That's 15.2 hours, in the ballpark of my 123-hour joke. Well, you're saved because also according to the article, the earth day is not increasing at a constant rate, but the rate is increasing, even if the full day is just an evening and morning as biblically described. Bottom line, at it's creation, the earth day was not 24 hours. Again, I maintain that time is relative, even from an earth perspective.
  • Melcharaz
    Melcharaz avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 426
    1
    4
    8
    Melcharaz avatar
    Melcharaz
    All of that can be true, IF the world wasnt made in 4 days and creation in 6 days.
  • ATroubledMan
    ATroubledMan avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 200
    0
    1
    2
    ATroubledMan avatar
    ATroubledMan
    --> @fauxlaw
    Bottom line, at it's creation, the earth day was not 24 hours. Again, I maintain that time is relative, even from an earth perspective.
    I might agree with you there that the Genesis time period may not have been 24 hours, but it would have been one rotation of the Earth, which could place it somewhere in the ball park of that. The Earth has been estimated at around 4.5 billion years in age, but I wouldn't agree that timeline would match Genesis. I don't remember exactly, but a theologian scholar some time ago did an estimate based on time lines of the generations that passed from Adam and Eve and turned out to be less than 10,000 years. 

    Back in that time when Scriptures was being written, they have no concept of millions or billions of years and assumed the Earth was young.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @ATroubledMan
    1 day = 1 rotation of the earth = an increasing amount of time since the earth was formed. Isn't that what I said, quoting from Scientific American? Like I said, you're fixated on this 24-hour bit. 1 day = 1 rotation ≠ a constant duration of time throughout earth's history.
  • T_Rocks
    T_Rocks avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 8
    0
    0
    0
    T_Rocks avatar
    T_Rocks
    --> @fauxlaw
    1 day = 1 rotation of the earth = an increasing amount of time since the earth was formed. Isn't that what I said, quoting from Scientific American? Like I said, you're fixated on this 24-hour bit. 1 day = 1 rotation ≠ a constant duration of time throughout earth's history.
    Don't you think that you are thrashing and trying to stretch the "time discrepancy" argument way past its use-by-date?
    It certainly does creationism any favours to keep trying to bridge and smooth over what are blatantly obvious discrepancies.

    The Bible got it horribly wrong and no number of excuse rights it.

    How about moving on from the old worn-out nit-picking of established facts and contribute something more useful and constructive to the creationism debate.
    For example, you could at least research the exhaustive unbiased, scientific research and findings made by the many large venture-based organizations set up to specifically prove creationism.

    Then, come back and put your findings on the table for us to discuss.
  • ATroubledMan
    ATroubledMan avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 200
    0
    1
    2
    ATroubledMan avatar
    ATroubledMan
    --> @fauxlaw
    Actually, the Earth is losing angular momentum to the moon (tidal effects) so it's rotational period is getting longer, days were shorter in the past an will get increasingly longer.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,137
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @T_Rocks
    Don't you think that rather than the Bible being horribly wrong, an easy assumption to make, that you are just ignoring that it may have been told from a different perspective than yours? Is the important point that creation occurred, or s it that it occurred over 6x24-hour periods? Take a choice; it's yours to take.