It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Orbits in our solar system proof of divine scientific interference?

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


The guys up there have a signature, and it is order and perfection. It is evident throughout nature, our local solar system and in the Universe as we have come to know it.


Well if that's true, how come your equations are not perfect? They are not 100% so not perfection.

They make perfection yet we, as a human race, are flawed and, therefore, not perfect.

What about the many diseases that have wiped out million of humans and animals? How is that perfection?

Humans by default are not perfect. The planets are not in a perfect orbit, rotation, tilt either. The Sun has a limited time before it burns out. Our Moon is getting further away. How is any of that perfection?


Because it works. All the imperfections seem to contribute, and even make everything work perfectly, or work to have a continuation of existence. That makes it perfect.

Diseases and death are the result of nature. A nature that by design is not supposed to be perfect. But perfection can be found within all the imperfection, if you look deep enough. Just because there is pain and death only means we can't save ourselves with our own power.




posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
We're just pointing out clear flaws in the logic at hand


Firstly who are these «we» you represent, and what are the flaws in the OP? You haven't been able establish anything other than being utterly annoying and rude. Continuously. You expect far too much from Nature, and you blame me for it. Firstly you assumed I was religious, then you claim my numbers and calculations are wrong, then you claim you never said that, and that science can never be acted out or practical, and now you are acting like some representative for some anti-enigma movement with a mission???

I'd say you are a troll. Please tell me exactly WHAT have I done wrong in the OP. What have I done other than presenting curious patterns evident in the orbits of our neighbouring planets and then asking the public here at ATS whether people see this as evidence of some sort of divine interference? A few sensible critics (not including you and a certain other poster who seem to agree with anything you'd say) have pointed out, and probably rightfully so, that as far as we know planets in star systems act in this way because of the laws of physics, which is where the situation is right now. There is nothing wrong with the OP, I use NASA's own numbers, and these star alignments are factual and real. Why don't you just leave it, silly? All you have posted is nonsense.
edit on 28-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: stormcell
Planetary orbits have to be in harmonic ratios in order for the long-term accumulated perturbations in the orbit of each planet caused by other planets to cancel out.

The orbital radius and period is proportional to the mass of the object. Keplers laws of motion will explain in great detail.


Now, that was the kind of answer I was looking for. Please, could you point me in the right direction? Is there any understandable literature on this particular subject? I suspected exactly that, but these numbers still amaze me. Have you any idea how long time it would have taken the planets to order themselves like they have? Kind of like if you place hundreds of metronomes on a common suspended surface, they will adjust to each other over a relatively period of time and synchronise themselves to click together. Pretty amazing.

What you're looking for is here. It occurs naturally, because of gravity and lots and lots of time. Outliers end up with non-harmonic orbits, like nonperiodic comets. But for the most part orbital motion will sort itself into these patterns.

Saturn's and Jupiter's moon systems both have resonance patterns of their own, in fact.


From the Wikipedia article you posted:


en.wikipedia.org...
In celestial mechanics, an orbital resonance occurs when two orbiting bodies exert a regular, periodic gravitational influence on each other, usually due to their orbital periods being related by a ratio of two small integers.


This sounds like a good explanation. Orbital Resonance. Catchy term!

Then again, primes in sequence? If that is coincidental, it does raise a few questions as for the WTF-ishness of it all.
edit on 28-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Ghost147
We're just pointing out clear flaws in the logic at hand


Firstly who are these «we» you represent, and what are the flaws in the OP? You haven't been able establish anything other than being utterly annoying and rude. Continuously. You expect far too much from Nature, and you blame me for it. Firstly you assumed I was religious, then you claim my numbers and calculations are wrong, then you claim you never said that, and that science can never be acted out or practical, and now you are acting like some representative for some anti-enigma movement with a mission???

I'd say you are a troll. Please tell me exactly WHAT have I done wrong in the OP. What have I done other than presenting curious patterns evident in the orbits of our neighbouring planets and then asking the public here at ATS whether people see this as evidence of some sort of divine interference? A few sensible critics (not including you and a certain other poster who seem to agree with anything you'd say) have pointed out, and probably rightfully so, that as far as we know planets in star systems act in this way because of the laws of physics, which is where the situation is right now. There is nothing wrong with the OP, I use NASA's own numbers, and these star alignments are factual and real. Why don't you just leave it, silly? All you have posted is nonsense.


The collective "we" are the people who have told you how rounding numbers up to make it fit makes it a flaw. The same way as the speed of all the planets have changed over the millions of years make your equations less accurate.

You have used your own terms (inner solar system), but refuse to accept what the terms actually mean.

All of your "proof" only works if you do it a specific way for a specific planet. You can't do the same math for every planet, therefore your "finding" is wrong.

We have also pointed out where you have been wrong a number of times. To get the numbers or shapes you want you have to change your equation or round up a number.

You say it's perfect, but if that was the case how come it's not 100%?



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

And you are wrong. I obviously didn't round the numbers when I did the calculations, but when presenting percents in written form it's common to as few decimals as possible. 0.001% isn't all that much when we are talking of compact ratios. You have issues with the OP, but also Kepler, Copernicus, Orbital Resonance, the calendar, the fields of mathematics and physics and now you have even troubles with common English orthography. Bring your sh*t on your way out. And take your creepy buddy with you.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: TerryDon79

And you are wrong. I obviously didn't round the numbers when I did the calculations, but when presenting percents in written form it's common to as few decimals as possible. 0.001% isn't all that much when we are talking of compact ratios. You have issues with the OP, but also Kepler, Copernicus, Orbital Resonance, the calendar, the fields of mathematics and physics and now you have even troubles with common English orthography. Bring your sh*t on your way out. And take your creepy buddy with you.


How exactly is this not rounding up??


Mercury 87.969 days ==> Source
Venus 224.701 days ==> Source
Mars 686.971 days ==> Source
Total 999.641 ≈ 1000 days


None of your equations get to 100%. How is that "perfect"?

You pick and choose which planets use what equation to get your %.

All that shows is its NOT perfect. So to say it is is what's called a flaw.

ETA The only person to be rude has been you. We tell you how it is wrong and we get called trolls and cursed at. Well done OP. Well done.
edit on 284128/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's doubly meaningless, considering that an Earth day has nothing to do with EARTH's orbital period, much less the other planets.


Precisely.


You didn't understand the Tomato man. Whether you use (c. 365) days, (360) arc degrees, (100) per cents &c. for the orbit of the Earth, these ratios related to the synodic periods of these planets interacting with Earth would be identical.
edit on 28-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

You DID adjust your numbers. How is saying "Exactly 1000" the same as saying 999.641?


Again you misinform and lie. In the OP I wrote literally: «Thread I made on the fact that the orbits of Mercury, Venus and Mars you get almost exactly 1000 days». How the hell do you get that to become «Exactly 1000». There is a word for your kind in Norway, we call you Tusseladder. A race of trolls. You'd wanna try to avoid direct sunlight.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

π is perfect, can you please write it with all its decimals? You can easily do quite exact calculations using Pi= 3.14, or 3.15 for that matter.

None of the hexagons in a honeycomb are exact, but the hexagonal pattern present in honeycombs is still perfect. Would you say calculus is less or more perfect than geometry? You have issues with nature. Nature is never 100% exact, it still is considered perfect.
edit on 28-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: TerryDon79

π is perfect, can you please write it with all its decimals?

None of the hexagons in a honeycomb are exact, but the hexagonal pattern is still perfect. Would you say calculus is less or more perfect than geometry?


YOU are the one who was questioning about it being "divine scientific intervention".

Our argument is, if it's not perfect then hoe could it be?

You make argument after argument and you say you're not sure, yet when we say it's flawed you go on a major defensive like we're going to kill your child. You go beyond being rude.

It's not up to us to prove your case. It's up to you to prove it to us.

If it's not 100% then it's not perfect. It's that simple.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Firstly who are these «we» you represent


Nice deflection from the conversation at hand...

It's obviously any person who has commented on the invalid logic within the OP. Here's a list of people who have done so, so far (in order of appearance):

Mandroid7
Ghost147
SlapMonkey
TerryDon79
BIGPoJo
tri-lobe-1
ManFromEurope
Sillyolme


That's just from page 1. And those members make up 8/10 of your individual responsers on page 1. All of which agree that the logic within your OP is flawed, or have offered up an actual answer as to how it does all work naturally.

Let's continue....

TycoonBarnaby
stormcell
rigel4
AndyMayhew
AshOnMyTomatoes
truthseeker84
Teikiatsu


That's page 2. 6/7 members new to the topic to post agree that your logic is flawed.

Trust me when I say I can go on.

Next time you may want to hold off on deflecting the argument lest I continue to embarrass your reading comprehension skills further.



originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
what are the flaws in the OP? You haven't been able establish anything other than being utterly annoying and rude.


Are you this blind to the responses you've been getting? You must be because you don't actually respond to the content within them. You seem to just ignore everything and everyone that doesn't appear to agree with you (which is the vast majority of responses, as we have seen).

Here is every point in this topic that has established why your OP's logic is flawed:

~ Physics: Gravity, inertia causes that affect (that's from the very first post)
~ The OP fails to point out why order equals intelligent design without resorting to supposition
~ We would expect an intelligence factor to be precise with it's calculations. If they can determine orbits, they can make it exactly 1000
~ The OP fails to explain how/why the rest of the solar system has no relation to this phenomena
~ F = m * a causes this affect (Force, Mass, Acceleration)
~ Why is 1000 a significant number?
~ Why are orders of 10 significant?
~ The OP fails to understand that Orbital Times CHANGE. The phenomena is only visible at this very moment, and from this very planet.
~ The OP draws a conclusion and then finds evidence to support the conclusion (this is a logical fallacy)
~ Planetary orbits have to be in harmonic ratios in order for the long-term accumulated perturbations in the orbit of each planet caused by other planets to cancel out.
~ The orbital radius and period is proportional to the mass of the object. Keplers laws of motion will explain in great detail.
~ Outliers end up with non-harmonic orbits, like nonperiodic comets. But for the most part orbital motion will sort itself into these patterns. Saturn's and Jupiter's moon systems both have resonance patterns of their own, in fact.
~ The OP only selects planets that supports his preconceived conclusions, and ignores all other planets that don't
~ An Earth day has nothing to do with EARTH's orbital period, much less the other planets.
~ The OP used two separate calculations for different factors, only because the outcome appeared to support the preconceived notion, yet if the same calculation was used throughout the variables, they wouldn't support the conclusion
~ The OP fails to explain why seeing a planet with the naked eye is meaningful in any way
~ They are a clear indicator of the tendency of complex systems to self-organize, in this case, the interactions of massive bodies in space. This is a property of physics, not a property of divinity.
~ Retrograde motion is not an astrophysical phenomenon, it is a matter of physical perspective.
~ The OP fails to explain why Venus and Mercury's distance from the sun is meaningful to Earth's perspective.


And that's just within the first 2 pages....


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Continuously. You expect far too much from Nature, and you blame me for it.


The only think I blame you for is your falsehoods within the logic of your OP.

It's not that "I expect too much from nature" it's that we have actually proven why the concept within the OP is natural.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Firstly you assumed I was religious


WHY THE HECK DOES THIS MATTER?! Why are you still going on and on about it. I already admitted I was mistaken, and that the accusation still has nothing to do with how the flaws in your OP still exist!

Is this honestly the only argument you have left to combat with? Something that doesn't even matter to the responses at hand?

The only reason your religion was brought up in the first place was because that would be the reason you chose a specific god. But seeing how you're referring to 'intelligence' generally, that point does matter. What does matter is that the logic used in your OP is flawed.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
, then you claim my numbers and calculations are wrong


No I didn't! Are you on hallucinogens? post the damn quote and I'll withdraw this statement...

I never said your numbers are wrong, I never said your calculations are wrong. The only thing I initially stated is the conclusion you've came to is based off of a false premise and that your numbers have no significance.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
then you claim you never said that


Go ahead! prove me wrong! Post a damn quote already and stop just blabbering on with unfounded claims.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
and that science can never be acted out or practical


You came to that conclusion yourself. I've never once said that. (but feel free to quote me on this too)

What I did say was that Science is about finding knowledge. So making a few orbits have a pattern (a pattern that can only be seen at this very moment in time from this very planet) is pointless.

Show me the significance behind doing such a thing in the name of knowledge, and that would make it scientific.

You only added "Scientific" to the thread's title because you thought it would be more appealing to a different crowd. Thanks to your ignorance, all you achieved with that is making the topic even more obviously invalid.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
and now you are acting like some representative for some anti-enigma movement with a mission???


I don't represent anyone else here in the topic. The only reason I stated "We" is because I am part of the opposition, and the Opposition makes up the majority of all individual members in this thread, as well as all the responses.

Your total rejection that you've received any opposition is beyond delusion.
edit on 28/2/16 by Ghost147 because: Quote code fail



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Ghost147

You DID adjust your numbers. How is saying "Exactly 1000" the same as saying 999.641?


Again you misinform and lie. In the OP I wrote literally: «Thread I made on the fact that the orbits of Mercury, Venus and Mars you get almost exactly 1000 days». How the hell do you get that to become «Exactly 1000». There is a word for your kind in Norway, we call you Tusseladder. A race of trolls. You'd wanna try to avoid direct sunlight.


Yup. My mistake, I read it wrong. You did not indeed claim that it was "exact"

Nevertheless, my point still stands as to why 1000 has any significance?

(That's odd, a mistake that was readily admitted to be one once the evidence was presented to show the initial response was false)

(Odd... I wonder if you have the maturity to admit when you're wrong too?)
edit on 28/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Whatever, I gave quite a few of those posters stars for great answers. I agree fully with Mandroid and respect several of these posters for their honest takes on why these ratios are the way they are. There is nothing wrong with my numbers, and these planets' synodic cycles and the ratios involved are REAL (even when rounding), and for the millionth time, I am NOT religious, I don't believe in the bogus theory coined «Intelligent Design», I don't adhere to bronze age ethics or your neolithic way of needing to have the last say, and I asked a sincere question in the title about the supposed divine nature of how the Universe orders itself according to the Laws of Physics. ACTUALLY, if you had pulled your head out of your arse you would understand that most people in that list you boast allegiance with actually COMPLIES to the numbers and ratios posted in the OP, because there is NOTHING denying it, it is perpetual and recurring, and these observations and calculations are all rooted in empirical science. Most of the people in that list I agree fully with, but you and TerryDon79 are obviously unable to understand that.

My main intent with my Title and OP was to question the seemingly divine nature of the physical universe, the laws of physics and stuff like what user AshOnMyTomatoes calls Orbital Resonance. I bet most of the people in that list of yours think you are a narrow-minded trolling schmock.
edit on 28-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
When you see the orbits of planets Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter, there is a synchronicity you just can't deny


Let's humor this notion for just a moment and say that something really determined the 'synchronicity' of these orbits.

Now, please explain to me why the only logical conclusion that can be reached just so happens to be the god you choose to follow?

Explain how it isn't determined by Aliens

Explain how it isn't determined by Krishna/Zeus/Odin or any other god that isn't yours.

Explain how you came to the conclusion that it is your god and only your god and cannot possibly be anything else other than your god.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Thread I made on the fact that the orbits of Mercury, Venus and Mars you get almost exactly 1000 days


And then you post the numbers, which is actually 999.641.

You're reaching....

Wait... what happens if we take the first three numbers and turn them upside down! that's right... 666, looks like the devil really did it.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
So what do you guys think? Are these orbits and the internal synchronicity involved with these planets somehow proof that somebody up there is having fun with us?


No. This proves absolutely nothing.

You've simply concluded that the only logical answer to the numbers that you have purposely adjusted in order for fit your concept isn't coincidence, but it is in fact a magical invisible being that for no apparent reason decided to make these particular planets add up to a specific, but not exact, number, a number which holds no significance what so ever, and a number that is only subjectively viewed from our perspective because "days" according to Earth is not at all a significant or valuable source of determining time.

Not all the planets in the solar system, not all the planets in the galaxy, not all the planets in the universe, but a small handful that you've chosen to presuppose a nonsensical conclusion which really represents nothing at all.

You are simply demonstrating that you require to alter the information in the universe around you because you are so desperate to prove your god exists.




Any other answer past this one is irrelevant.

This is the truth behind the curtain the OP tried to hang.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

I'll leave it to a mathematician to calculate the odds in favor of intelligent design...

He could be faithless...
but he would be unable to deny the odds...

I think people's beliefs or lack thereof leave them predisposed to conclusions without rationalization...

How is it evidence against intelligent design?
How are a series of balls going around a bigger ball evidence of intelligence?


Because the Universe is intelligent? Looks to me like the Universe is quite orderly too. Perhaps I'm actually a pantheist, since I see these rational ratios and dancing dynamics in play all over the place.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

I'll leave it to a mathematician to calculate the odds in favor of intelligent design...

He could be faithless...
but he would be unable to deny the odds...

I think people's beliefs or lack thereof leave them predisposed to conclusions without rationalization...

How is it evidence against intelligent design?
How are a series of balls going around a bigger ball evidence of intelligence?


Because the Universe is intelligent? Looks to me like the Universe is quite orderly too. Perhaps I'm actually a pantheist, since I see these rational ratios and dancing dynamics in play all over the place.
So at the end of the day, we're back to "physics = god". What a boring, roundabout way to start an Intelligent Design thread.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I gotta say...after reading the entire article:

There is no proof of a God....if so, show it, and don't show me pictures of the universe or nature or spirograph images. God, in front of me saying it's god and then proving it. That is the only way. sorry.

You can use all the geometry and equations known to man and put all sorts of patterns in place that you want. It doesn't PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt ANYTHING.

To heck with the universe and the INNER solar system, Man does not need god in order for man to exist. Easy statement to make. Prove me wrong. How does the human race need any god in order to exist?



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: truthseeker84

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: truthseeker84

Ah I see so you are not against it being intelligently designed...
you are against the designer being divine...
If God is the creator of the Universe then science is merely the study of his laws used in doing so...


I think what they were getting at is that the term "divine science" is paradoxical and in it's self based on an unprovable premise.


Correct, I just couldn't word it better.



AND for the millionth time, the title of this thread has NOTHING to do with Intelligent Design Theory. However, seeing that the typical star we se in the sky is typically 1 000 000 000 years older than our own star, and for all we know life is the norm in the Universe. Levelling solar systems and ordering orbits, sizes, distances etc. IS technologically POSSIBLE, only WE haven't yet built such machines of that size but it is FULLY POSSIBLE, and what if there is life out there who developed its first airborne civilisation 800 million years ago, and has developed a kind of science and technology that allows them to travel from star to star, seeding colonies made from lifeforms these guys have developed, gathered, synthesised or cloned. By divine I mean DIVINE as in how PI is divine, how LEMMY is bleeding divine. Again, I am NOT religious, I am posting in a religious forum, directing this conundrum for religious people to ponder.

Best answer to my question until now would be the following:


originally posted by: stormcell
Planetary orbits have to be in harmonic ratios in order for the long-term accumulated perturbations in the orbit of each planet caused by other planets to cancel out.

The orbital radius and period is proportional to the mass of the object. Keplers laws of motion will explain in great detail.


And his follow-up:


originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

What you're looking for is here. It occurs naturally, because of gravity and lots and lots of time. Outliers end up with non-harmonic orbits, like nonperiodic comets. But for the most part orbital motion will sort itself into these patterns.

Saturn's and Jupiter's moon systems both have resonance patterns of their own, in fact.


That is the only poster who has managed to substantiate his claims, it can be explained scientifically. He is also one of but few posters in this thread who has actually taken into consideration the very premise of the OP, which cannot be denied, the numbers DO show a sort of order and synchronicity which is undeniably amazing.

By divine I don't mean Santa Clause or some renegade iron-age rabbi made it, only that the beauty of it is bloody divine. It's the only word I can find to describe it properly. Nature is divine, it made us and all life. Love is divine, selecting the best suited for the species to develop properly. I think it is fair to say that the beauty and order involved with Nature, Physics, Chemistry and the Universe as we have come to know it, the logics of our genes— is nothing short of divine.
edit on 28-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

I'll leave it to a mathematician to calculate the odds in favor of intelligent design...

He could be faithless...
but he would be unable to deny the odds...

I think people's beliefs or lack thereof leave them predisposed to conclusions without rationalization...

How is it evidence against intelligent design?
How are a series of balls going around a bigger ball evidence of intelligence?


Because the Universe is intelligent? Looks to me like the Universe is quite orderly too. Perhaps I'm actually a pantheist, since I see these rational ratios and dancing dynamics in play all over the place.
So at the end of the day, we're back to "physics = god". What a boring, roundabout way to start an Intelligent Design thread.


The concept of a sentient Universe has been proposed by many great minds of science, and its religious counterpart would be Pantheism, and certainly not Intelligent Design Theory. Intelligent Design theory doesn't speak of a sentient universe as far as I know. I don't believe in Intelligent Design Theory. But I DO believe in Intelligence just like I believe in Design. I even find some designs «intelligent», but the claim that the Universe was made 6000 years ago in about a week's time? Give me a break. You insult my intelligence.
edit on 28-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: wdkirk

That would depend on what you call God or gods. Jesus says God is love. Are you saying we don't need love? Genesis 1 explains God as the Forces of Nature, and goes on to describe how this God (the Forces of the Universe) made everything in seven stages, and supposedly this process ended with the creation of two humans called Adam and Eve (there were plenty people around when Adam was made). Genesis is a riddle and it even reveals the age of Planet Earth. Supposedly God created everything in 6 stages of 1000 years each, and supposedly one day for God is like 1000 years for us. He is supposed to have rested while Adam and Eve lived and died, about 1000 years where God is resting and Adam sweating. This cycle of creation supposedly started with the creation of the Earth and ended about 6000 years ago with the creation of Adam when God would rest until Noah's kingdom was flooded. Supposedly Adam was a human clone of some demiurge calling himself Jahveh.

6000 x 365.25 x 1000 = 2 191 500 000
5777 x 365.25 x 1000 = 2 110 049 250
SUM = 4 301 549 250 years

According to Google Earth is 4 543 000 000 years old, according to Genesis and the Hebrew calendar Google's almost right. Or maybe God counts the Sabbaths too?
edit on 28-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join