Fire with Fire

I think that there are different realms of reason. One has to use reason appropriate to the situation or the outcome is invalid. For example; If a person wants to talk about poetry, it is inappropriate to call into question the poem’s legal fortitude. Likewise a person does not site the symbiotic pattern of a warranty in court.

Conservative Christianity often argues that the ‘day’ spoken of in the Genesis 1 account of creation is a 24 hour rotation of the Earth. It would be invalid for a person to speak of poetic meaning in order to present evidence against this position because the person believing this is basing their position on the denotation of the word ‘day’ (in English, we will leave the Hebrew alone). Therefore, a person wishing to discount this opinion would need to do so using literal interpretation of this text without calling in outside evidence. Simply, this opinion has to defeat itself or else it can not be discounted as invalid.

Until yesterday that was where I stood. Never mind what I think about it personally, I could not discount the opinion using only interior/ non-poetic reasoning. That is, until I stumbled across reason in the text.

The definition of a day is one rotation of the Earth. This rotation is based on the position of the sun. The sun was not created until the 4th day, therefore it is self defeating to say that there was a literal ‘day’ period for the first 3 ‘days’.

Any rebuttals?