Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Explanation #1: There was "an evening and a morning" for three days and nights, during which time there was some other source of intermittent light, one which seamlessly faded away once the sun and moon were put in place, at which point (presumably) the earth began to orbit the sun and the moon began to orbit the earth... or....

Explanation #2: The ancient Hebrews had no idea that the earth was a sphere, that it orbited the sun (that the sun and the moon were not, in fact, objects that rotated around us in the firmament) and that "evening" was caused by the earth rotating in such a way that it puts its bulk between the observer and the star that we orbit.

Geee....

[John V]

More importantly, how was there "an evening and a morning" without the earth being a rotating sphere that orbits a yellow dwarf star?

The earth may have been rotating, with the light source from v3 in a fixed position.

This version is starting to sound like the two trees from The Silmarillion, Telperion and Laurelin, which gave light before the sun and moon existed.

Good story, bro. Needs more elves.

I also noticed Christian themes in the Silmarillion, which isn't surprising, as Tolkien was a Christian.

[Minimalist]

Like I said...children believe in magic.

Time to grow up, sonny.

[Losty]

D:
Wha...?

You said there was light,

Yep. We're not told what the source of the light was, but it was there. Assuming it was full spectrum, there was also heat. When I was young I knew a guy who grew pot plants in the space under the steps of his mom's home. They never got light from the sun but did just fine.

So...because the bible doesn't say what kind of light it is....you get to just make assumptions and you think that's honest?

and plants can live one day without light.

Yep. Take a plant and put it in total darkness for 24 hours. It will survive. So, even without the first argument, this position fails.

Neither of those two statements mean a plant could live on an earth that has never had a sun.

Uh, yeah, either one of them works. You can test it yourself.

I cannot test your theory I don't have an earth with no sun to test it on. If I assume you aren't completely fucking stupid then I can assume you know that there's a huge fucking difference between hiding in a closet where the sunlight can't reach you and there being no sun at all. So it's still just you being dishonest.

and one day without sun now is still not the same as one day without there ever having been a sun.

What's the difference?

The difference is like removing a pot of water from a hot stove element versus never having placed the pot on the stove to begin with.

[Thumpalumpacus]

More importantly, how was there "an evening and a morning" without the earth being a rotating sphere that orbits a yellow dwarf star?

The earth may have been rotating, with the light source from v3 in a fixed position.

This version is starting to sound like the two trees from The Silmarillion, Telperion and Laurelin, which gave light before the sun and moon existed.

Good story, bro. Needs more elves.

I also noticed Christian themes in the Silmarillion, which isn't surprising, as Tolkien was a Christian.

There's another similarity between Tolkien's work and the Bible, too.

[abaris]

There's another similarity between Tolkien's work and the Bible, too.

Would it be this?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep. We're not told what the source of the light was, but it was there. Assuming it was full spectrum, there was also heat. When I was young I knew a guy who grew pot plants in the space under the steps of his mom's home. They never got light from the sun but did just fine.

They either did get light from the sun, or were supplied by some other source designed to mimic light from the sun.  Do you think that 2x4's actually stop sunlight from reaching a place?

Yep. Take a plant and put it in total darkness for 24 hours. It will survive. So, even without the first argument, this position fails.

They can live for a long time without direct access to visible or noticeable light, but will die in minutes if the sun were to be extinguished, and of course they could not live to begin with if the sun did not exist.  

Uh, yeah, either one of them works. You can test it yourself.

Actually, plants -can't- live without the sun or a replacement for it.  

Again, you can easily test this yourself.

Easily, no....we'd have to find some place with no sun.  Nowhere in our solar system qualifies, for obvious reasons.

What's the difference?

The difference is rather massive............in one instance..you are in the shade..in another,  a giant fucking star is missing.......Plants -require- a solar system with a sun in it, that's an indisputable fact regarding which there will be no argument.  

If you have to argue against that fact in order to excuse disparities in your myths...... that's it, they're done.  This shit is retarded..wtf are you doing to your holy books.......?  They got the "order of creation" wrong, that's all there is to it.  If this story happened in reality it did not happen as described. Not only do we know it did not happen as described, it's in-arguably impossible. I can't help but ask here...you had a neighbor that grew pot under his steps....and through some hilarious misconception about how plants and light work this has been taken..by you...to be supportive of the Genesis narrative? That's what comes to mind........

..............really?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's another similarity between Tolkien's work and the Bible, too.

Would it be this?

Mazactly!

[Cecelia]

Christians can easily just say "God kept the plants alive by not creating the rule that required plants to have sun to live before he created the sun."

The real problem is that the Sun is older than the earth, yet the Bible states Earth was created first.

[Rhondazvous]

D:
Wha...?

You said there was light,

Yep. We're not told what the source of the light was, but it was there. Assuming it was full spectrum, there was also heat. When I was young I knew a guy who grew pot plants in the space under the steps of his mom's home. They never got light from the sun but did just fine.

and plants can live one day without light.

Yep. Take a plant and put it in total darkness for 24 hours. It will survive. So, even without the first argument, this position fails.

Neither of those two statements mean a plant could live on an earth that has never had a sun.

Uh, yeah, either one of them works. You can test it yourself.

One day without sunlight because it's cloudy is not the same as one day with no sun at all,

Again, you can easily test this yourself.

and one day without sun now is still not the same as one day without there ever having been a sun.

What's the difference?

How can it be tested? By growing an oak tree on a planet that doesn't evolve around a sun?

Your whole argument depends on a condition that does not exist.