Do You Think It's Possible,The Universe Is Only 6000 Years Old

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Observationalist
What’s you thoughts on a global catastrophe that could have quickened the formation of rocks, with atypical pressure and friction?

Could rock layers be dated older, only because we date rocks based on a slow gradual formation.
When perhaps they were just formed more quickly due to an abnormal global event of pressure and friction.

No chance. All of that has been completely debunked and refuted. We know the grand canyon was not suddenly made. The erosion patterns prove it.

Are you 100% certain about the formation of the Grand Canyon. Or is that a most likely explanation? No other data or observations conflict with the agreed formation of the Grand Canyon?

Any consideration of Modem observations of quick formation of Canyons?

I’m not trying to prove a global flood, I’m just challenging our triumphalism of a science that has been tasked with finding evidence for a slow process that was proposed in the doctrine of uniformitarianism.

a reply to: Observationalist

Are you 100% certain about the formation of the Grand Canyon. Or is that a most likely explanation? No other data or observations conflict with the agreed formation of the Grand Canyon?

You know it's fine to challenge science. But you need to understand the science and the methodologies used to make their determinations in order to ask an intelligent question. Do you know about continental drift, plate tectonics, how rivers carve canyons? It's fine not to know this but if you're questioning the science, then you need to understand something about it. It's like asking a brain surgeon why he/she decides how to operate on a patient.

If you don't agree with the science, then explain your own position in terms of methodology - what did they do wrong and how you would have done it. There's always the option of going back to university and learning how it's all done.

a reply to: Phantom423

My complaint is that the evidence is filtered through a reactionary philosophical assumptions. Similar to creationists who see the evidence through their prior commitment.
Uniformitarianism

Geologic processes may have been active at different rates in the past that humans have not observed. "By force of popularity, uniformity of rate has persisted to our present day. For more than a century, Lyell's rhetoric conflating axiom with hypotheses has descended in unmodified form. Many geologists have been stifled by the belief that proper methodology includes an a priori commitment to gradual change, and by a preference for explaining large-scale phenomena as the concatenation of innumerable tiny changes."[42]

(Bold mine)

They even have a comparable religious title for it

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity, is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.[

It was a motivatied by needing to counter Catastrophism

It was originally proposed in contrast to catastrophism[7] by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton in his many books including Theory of the Earth.[8] Hutton's work was later refined by scientist John Playfair and popularised by geologist Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.[9] Today, Earth's history is considered to have been a slow, gradual process, punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events.

There was no need, except the fundies thought they could use Catastrophism to champion as proof of Noah’s flood.

Catastrophisim
Catastrophism held that geological epochs had ended with violent and sudden natural catastrophes such as great floods and the rapid formation of major mountain chains. Plants and animals living in the parts of the world where such events occurred were made extinct, being replaced abruptly by the new forms whose fossils defined the geological strata. Some catastrophists attempted to relate at least one such change to the Biblical account of Noah's flood.

However it was not needed

The concept was first popularised by the early 19th-century French scientist Georges Cuvier, who proposed that new life forms had moved in from other areas after local floods, and avoided religious or metaphysical speculation in his scientific writings.[

The adoption of Unifomitarianism as gospel could have simply been a knee jerk reaction to help protect secular university from loosing grant money to religious universities.

So I appreciate your concern for my education. And I do know I need to learn more and look forward to leaning more more about this subject. I’m concerned about your education and if you have been presented the pure, objective science that you triumph in the face of religious folk.

a reply to: Observationalist

I don't disagree with you. However, whether planet development was a slow, even process or a violent, catastrophic one is really a matter of perspective. The planet is 4.5 B years old. That's a lot of time for stuff to happen. If I had to make a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess), I'd say that there were more significant catastrophes that shaped the planet and this universe than periods of extreme calm.

Your comment by Georges Cuvier said it the best: new lifeforms will populate areas which have undergone extreme stress. It makes sense to me. And I didn't need the Bible to come to that conclusion.

You might be interested to read Immanuel Velikovsky's book "Worlds in Collision" I read it a long time ago and thought at the time that he was at least partially right.

Worlds in Collision is a book written by Immanuel Velikovsky and first published April 3, 1950.

The book postulated that around the 15th century BC, Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object, and passed near Earth (an actual collision is not mentioned). The object changed Earth's orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes that were mentioned in early mythologies and religions around the world. Many of the book's claims are completely rejected by the established scientific community as they are not supported by any available evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...

Everything comes down to the hard evidence. We know that an asteroid hit this planet and spun off the Moon. Millions of meteorites have shaped the planet. Plate tectonics, the Ice Age, volcanoes - they're really the major architects of this planet. That life is sustainable at all (and maybe eventually it is not) is a wonder. Interestingly enough, I read recently that our solar system is moving into an area of the galaxy that has a high level of large asteroids and meteorites flying around. We're sending rockets to asteroids to see how we can break them up and maybe protect the planet. So whether we believe in a slow process or a catastrophic process, one big hit is really all you need to wipe us out.

My answer? Get off this planet. The Mars Mission IMO is the most important project right now. It will be a stepping stone for humanity to move off Earth and then out of this solar system. I'm sure other civilizations out there have done the same so as to distribute themselves across a very wide area to preserve their kind.

Those were good comments in your post - always food for thought.

originally posted by: OOOOOO
So what do you think is it possible the Universe, created by GOD, only 6000 years ago.

NO.
There are a LOT of problems with the Bible.
That is just one of them.

originally posted by: Observationalist
Are you 100% certain about the formation of the Grand Canyon. Or is that a most likely explanation? No other data or observations conflict with the agreed formation of the Grand Canyon?

I'm not 100% certain about anything. But I'd say, 99.99999999999999999999% based on the evidence we have.

Any consideration of Modem observations of quick formation of Canyons?

Not until there is evidence supporting the Grand canyon being formed in that way. Based on all evidence and understanding of erosion patterns, it was slowly formed over time. Just because some canyons can be formed quickly, does not mean the Grand Canyon or others would have to be.

I’m not trying to prove a global flood, I’m just challenging our triumphalism of a science that has been tasked with finding evidence for a slow process that was proposed in the doctrine of uniformitarianism.

Then you will need some evidence to support that. Uniformitarianism does not mean everything ONLY forms slowly. Certain processes can lead to things forming fast, but in the observed instances of most of them, they are formed slowly over time. It isn't an absolutist position. An impact event created the foundation for the Great Lakes pretty quickly, but the Grand Canyon was carved by a river over time. It's not all or nothing. Some things are fast, some are slow.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: OOOOOO

I actually met a guy who believed its all a hoax and that dinosaur bones were implanted and the 'world' was created much more recently.

Hey for all you know it was created seconds ago, like a VR game.

and all those millions old microbes are actors paid by nasa

Yous really crack me up.

Hey does any of yous, play with, Universe Sandbox 1, 2 or 3.

The possibilities almost seem endless, especially if you could add, more ram, and bigger memory, and all dat, udder stuff.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: OOOOOO
Scientists Find First Observed Evidence That Our Universe May Be a Hologram
Physicists finds evidence from just after the Big Bang that supports the controversial holographic universe theory.


PAUL RATNER
02 February, 2017
bigthink.com...

You're overanalyzing the simplicity of the universe, to the extreme. 2+2=4 and you don't scratch paper to reach that sum. But with common core, much like scientists and the universe, you could go through multiple pages of paper to reach "4."

I mean, a hologram? Come on man.

Like I said you guys, just don't get it, it just a short, time, they will be able to place you into, a hologram, and you will think it is real, as real as this. And, big and all those old, monks, sages, wisemen, keep saying non of this is real, all is illusion. But still, just as I said you guys believe all this, O, please help me I goina die, I don't think I can take, what we gona do, he's dying and he can't take it.

People are so stupid, yea, I said it, people want virtual reality, what a joke, what are you bored with your life, go jump off a mountain, go clime a mountain, this way better, at least if you die, you think you really did, at least for a time.

Plus I can go full lucid at will, dream that is, but I get bored with doing that, after a while, that's one reason,why I'm building my own float tank. A black room would suck, plus I'm not going to pay someone $65.00 a hour , when I could be charging people $65.00 a hour. I have never floated in tank, I use to astral project to the A Plane alot, not much of late. I would of swore that Rivergoddest came smacked me on the chest one night, I caught her running away, next thing I know I found out she was dead.

a reply to: nOraKat
I only know about dinosaurs because I’ve been told this, have not dug any up personally.

I don’t even know if Earth is a big blue ball with clouds like the images taken from space of how it looks. I’ve not been to space to verify this for myself.

We really only know what we get told. If it’s repeated enough it becomes “true”.

Fact is, none of us know the real truth about anything and we likely never will.

I think we all ponder the same questions, is this real, what are we here for, what happens when we die, etc etc

a reply to: peter vlar

I read your reply. I'm not going to respond to it in detail. An example of why, your incorrect information on gilgamesh being the inspiration for Noah and the Flood. Nobody alive can prove this is true, and vice versa. It goes without saying this atheist argument against the legitimacy of the bible is just that, an empty argument.

Obviously, when you just sit and think about it by yourself for 5 seconds, you realize that if there was a world wide flood, that story would be carried throughout all civilizations and not be a solely Abrahamic story. So, if anything, the fact there are other stories only legitimizes the story of Noah. Logic and the preponderance of this story throughout civilizations doesn't strengthen your stated argument, it greatly weakens it.

Per my beliefs, it truly matters what you say. What you say and what you think lead to actions. The trinkle of sinful selfish prideful actions leads to unredeemable situations.

You've made your decision. I've made mine. Though I am objective and can hear an unbiased argument, I also realize those two things do not exist. I naturally look for ways to incorporate truths into the narrative I have accepted. You do the same for your narrative. I think it is more difficult for you, but you endure regardless.

To everyone else who likes to use the phrase "self fulfilling prophecy", I say to you that this is impossible statistically speaking. See, that is your language. If you think this is self actuating and coincidence, then you OBVIOUSLY have not read these prophecies, have only been misaligned by others misinformation, which was based on your narrative to begin with. You look for information, regardless of what you actually understand of it or the credibility of the source, and spew it as if you had a PhD in the matter. Realize that Bible Prophecy is all the truth you ever needed and more. This is not a topic to take lightly.
For the life of me, I cannot understand the motive of a person that dismisses this evidence out of hand. And then pretends to be an expert on the topic as they preach their misguided half truths in public.

I said in my earlier post that "those who seek the truth will find it." That is a biblical quote. It is also wisdom.
Cast aside biblical prophecy at your peril.

If anyone who happens upon this post is teetering on the fence, as I once was, and are looking for irrefutable evidence of the creator; I point you in the direction of Biblical Prophecy. A logical mind that seeks to learn the truths of fulfilled prophecy will not be able to come away an atheist or even agnostic. If I had the skill, I'd post the 'mind blown' gif here.

a reply to: OOOOOO

The universe is at least 39 years old, and have witnessed that. Apart from that who knows, I could just be imagining everything

a reply to: Sillyolme

If God is a women why does she not make sure everyone knows, causes when I here people talk to God or about God they always use a hymn

Check this out, if you want, you tube.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: ManyMasks

hmm an interesting philosophy :

so if you assert that the earth // universe = a minimum of 39 year old - citing personal experience

lets drag your parents into this

they have an assumed + 20 years " personal experience " of the life of the universe

now your grand parents ............

he " personal experience " of your ancestors " stacks up " - like dendrochronology

ie - you parents recall your 5th brirtday party

so if you dismiss your parents experience - why believe your own

you has a potential infinity - or last tuesday as the start point of the universe

just being evils advocate

a reply to: violet

You realize that you can always study the subjects yourself or become a scientist if you really want to know, right? It's not just taking people's word on things, it's looking at evidence and experiments.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Sillyolme

If God is a women why does she not make sure everyone knows, causes when I here people talk to God or about God they always use a hymn

This is the part that does not really make sense to me (regardless of gender). God is claimed to be loving, all powerful and omniscient, yet can't even say hello or tell people which religion to follow. Why make people guess?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Sillyolme

If God is a women why does she not make sure everyone knows, causes when I here people talk to God or about God they always use a hymn

This is the part that does not really make sense to me (regardless of gender). God is claimed to be loving, all powerful and omniscient, yet can't even say hello or tell people which religion to follow. Why make people guess?

Free will the choice is yours.
The one became duality, multiplicity. When your Monad returns to the God Head, then you will understand.
A reason for everything, a part, of a bigger picture, where every part is necessary. That which has always been and will always be. Existence began before there was time, in time the Universe is Perfected, as it will be, with that said, there is really nothing to say, it has already been said, you will never really understand until, your Higher Monad, dwells within the God Head.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Is there a physical thing, an evidence that shows vehemently that it came from the very beginning of the universe and is not older than 6000 years?
Because there are a lot of evidences and things that are much older. A god would have had to fake a lot of things, finely webbed into another, to emulate the older age of nearly 14 billion years.

Only one religion wants the universe to be young and I have not seen any evidence for this.

What evidence do you have for 14 billion years.

Fact is noone knows a dam thing and these laughable claims of all sorts including 6000 or 500 trillion none of em can be proven, not too mention the measurements taken to support these meaningless stats the "scientists" come up with are all based on other flawed and unprovable millions and billions of years.

We do not really know what went on 100 years ago or last week half the time.

Science in these matters is no better than all the worst religions combined.

One big joke.

originally posted by: RustyNailer
I do not believe the Universe is 6000 yrs old, nor 13.5 Billion yrs old. The universe is timeless, infinite and eternal.

Nonsense...the Universe or anything else can be destroyed, deleted, unremembered.

Just wait till someone has had enough and decides to prove it, too.