NASA and the missing day

[Mister Agenda]

Well, I see Mister Agenda was the only one who read what I posted, yet the rest of you insist I read the stuff you post, no need to wonder why I do not, right. Thanks to Mister Agenda for using his brain.

Thanks, GC.

First thing is I Googled, Emperor Yeo in two or three different different ways and each time this emperor is centrally mentioned in the "Lost day." I say again my google was of Emperor Yeo, not the lost day.

So was mine. All I got on Emperor Yeo was apologetics sites, no one else seems to have heard of him. When did he live? What was his dynasty? How can we know it's the same day if we can't even establish that the report being claimed was from the same century?

Superficially at least, this Emperor Yao business seems entirely made-up imaginary support for the claim of the sun standing still for Joshua.

Never found a date for this emperor but, plenty on the dynasties of China. Please remember that there were more than one emperor in China in those ancient days, the country had not been consolidated at that time.

Sure.

Also remember that the article I posted did not say the stories from Mexico and South America were recorded during that time, they were events recorded later that go back to that time.

Which in itself makes them extremely problematic as reliable sources. I'm not saying people aren't passing down stories they heard. I'm saying it's not reasonable to make much of stories that were passed on orally for centuries before being recorded and which even then don't have the details we would need to establish that they are talking about the same thing.

Babylonian and Philistine records speak of such a day. As for the Egyptian priest reporting they had a long day as in (a hard day) is rather doubtful since there seems to be no such record of them doing the same at any other time, besides that's not what the priest did, they reported things happening in nature, the kingdom, wars and ect.

As neither of us are Egyptologists to the best of my knowledge, I don't think either of us can say either way, which means a figure of speech can't be reasonably ruled out, especially if the alternative is that the sun literally 'stood still in the sky' for hours. If the religion you believe didn't say this happened, would you buy it for a second? Would you hear about this priest's accounts and immediately jump to 'wow, that priest must have really seen the sun standing still in the sky for hours!'?

You all will take far less and state that this is the way it is, dark energy and dark matter have no evidence to support them, they are an idea to satisfy a problem that science can't explain, I'm not saying those things aren't there, if they are they will present problems and be less likely an answer to the current problem.

They are phenomena for which there is evidence, which is how we know of them. It's the explanation for the phenomena that requires more evidence to arrive at conclusively. Importantly, science isn't claiming it has an explanation for these things it can't explain.

As for Velikovsky, it seems he may be wrong, I'm not a scientist in that area, but Issac Newton was and he had a proposal on this event also.

At least you are willing to consider the possiblity that you might be wrong, which is more than some people can do. It speaks well of you.

A lot of circumstantial evidence, yes, but hard to rule out the event completely.

It's easy to rule out the event completely if you understand that it's physically impossible. Even if you go with magic/miracles, he cherry-picked his mythological source material for what agreed with his thesis and treated related myths and legends as if they were independent in order to make it seem more unlikely that different cultures could come up with them. It's a Rube-Goldberg hypothesis, and there are several things that have to be true of Venus that are not in order to support the hypothesis (that it would have a reducing hydrocarbon atmosphere instead of the nearly entirely CO2 atmosphere it actually possesses, for one).

Of coarse I believe it happened, an omnipotent God can do with His creation as He pleases with no explanation to the created.

GC

What God hypothetically could do is a crazy standard for believing what he did do. What crackpot hypothesis do you NOT believe with that as your standard? If you can't say, given God, that there's ANYTHING that sounds too silly for God to have done, you're saying you believe in a God that does silly things; like ripping out part of Jupiter, sending it careening around the inner planets, in violation of the laws of orbital mechanics, placing it exactly where it seems a planet should be according to what is currently understood of celestial mechanics, and completely changing the composition of its atmosphere so it appears to never have been part of Jupiter in the first place. An omnipotent God wouldn't need to do all that to accomplish its ends. It's whimsical. Do you really think God is whimsical, GC?