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.

 

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

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBIZZ
Time is a human construct. Imo, for God everything is happening simultaneously, including all points in what we call time. Time is just our way of measuring seasons and solar/astrological cycles. These seasons/cycles can speed up or slow down at any instance. Imo, this is why so many older people look so young currently & why sometines time seems to be going fast or slow. Infinity is also a human constrict & is something we are unable to perceive. God is everything from A to Z including both good and evil.


Again, that is highly unlikely, we are the product of the separations of all that is.

Someone is constantly telling us everything we are apart of is our human construct lol.

Not anymore...it has become so, for all everywhere in every form, in increasing detail.

The fear pouring from the original disturbers of the Plan to never be ONE AGAIN, will be thwarted and entirely.

All the Cycles and Broken Records repaired or wiped clean.




posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: OOOOOO

There is no scientific merit that the universe is a simulation or hologram. That would be just another creation myth.

This idea is only popular again since known fraudster and pyramid scheme operator Elon Musk said it was, presumably after one of his pot smoking sessions.


No scientific merit even exists...

So many lies in this world, your beloved science is not immune, in fact is totally illogical across the board and is not worth even considering since the conclusions presented do not make us better, and just lead to further theories.

Gatekeepers designed to hide real truth, science is a useful tool these days for that.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: OOOOOO

light from the farthest stars has taken longer than 6000 years to reach our telescopes here on earth !


How are you going to prove that ?

It may be true but so far it is impossible for anyone to ACTUALLY PROVE IT.

SPACE or whatever is outside of us could be all different than what they tell themselves and us,



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: FingerMan
a reply to: OOOOOO

There are many other "theories" out there that support a 6,000 year age of the earth.
To blindly say that science disproves the bible is, although the popular argument, antiquated and without the understanding of hypocrisy.
Scientific understanding and law has continuously changed for hundreds of years. It is still changing today. And it will never stop changing IMHO.
The laws and stories of the bible have not changed. It is however interesting to observe how the understanding of the depth and magnitude of creation just continues to elevate our image of the massive ability of the Creator.

If you want proof that the God of Abraham is the one true God and Creator, and his son was Yehoshua, then I will point you to irrefutable truth. It is called prophecy. Do some research on the prophecies fulfilled by the rehabitization of Jews in their homeland 2,000 years after they were spread throughout the globe. Look at the prophecies and time tables given of the appearance of the Messiah. Those who seek the TRUTH will find it. That truth was put into the bible for people like you and me.

Once I discovered this truth, pretty much all unnecessary questions about the universe, science, etc had little meaning to me other than a "well, isn't that interesting." God is truly unfathomable for us in this current form.



Do you know what self fulfilling prophecy is?


Yep, it is something like a 14 billion year period to work yourself backwards from.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: OOOOOO

I think the universe was created by God, but I don't know how long ago. If you read the Bible, the only time that "time" is mentioned is "in the beginning." Are we 100% certain that our carbon dating is accurate past a couple hundred years? Personally I think the earth is billions or hundreds of millions of years old and I think we're the second advanced civilization on it. Once we're wiped out or brought home during the 7 years of our Tribulation, life will begin again and the third advanced civilization will start advancing about a million years after they're created. Just my opinion.


Nope this is not going to be started again.

Live or die across the board, room of All.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Actually science changing its story is incredibly negative.

The story is ensured to never be true, always changing and being influenced by other theories....never EVER proving anything because it is designed to not do so.

If science is always changing and being proven utterly wrong what is the sense in preaching it as truth.

These baloney truth affect all the other new theories that come after them, endlessly.

Some fields of science have to this point offered NOTHING to us, but fantasy belief systems that pretend to be interesting and helpful but to me they are as dull as all religions.

Unbelievable how bad people want to make all these unproven theories facts...like a parasitical disease.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Blue Shift

matter then no matter and who knows what comes after , but your energy (or the energy of the one) will still remain!
immortal ?


What makes you believe the energy will remain ?

Another false belief that can never be proven...so far.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.



What you do not seem to understand yourself is, the SCIENCE ON ALL OF THAT IS UNPROVEN...PERIOD.

Just because you BELIEVE they know how things work does not make it so, nor does it make it necessary to debate theories with them.

Until it is demonstrated that they can actually PROVE ANYTHING, you are following a group of lost pilgrims.



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO




What you do not seem to understand yourself is, the SCIENCE ON ALL OF THAT IS UNPROVEN...PERIOD.


There are over 500 peer-reviewed journals and thousands of research articles which say that you're wrong. If you can find one article that endorses your statement, please post it. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
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.


So you honestly believe that the only way to know something is to be there personally to witness it? So basically all history is meaningless and scientists do not make observations and tests on evidence of past events? That's like saying nobody born after WW2 can prove the holocaust happened. The scientific method works.


How are you going to prove that ?

It may be true but so far it is impossible for anyone to ACTUALLY PROVE IT.

SPACE or whatever is outside of us could be all different than what they tell themselves and us,


We know the speed of light. We know how to use advance math to calculate distances between objects. So you won't believe that until you can travel the speed of light yourself and go to other stars? If that is your standard, you must not believe anything at all because scientists have figured a lot of that stuff out. If you have a better idea, then present a hypothesis and find a way to test it.


edit on 3 31 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Your wrong science deals with hypothesis and theory, and theories can change through further research... Scientists never state something as fact.
That's one of the first things they teach you, so in a sense everything is unproven, instead of facts if the theory is good it will become a law, and still it will be tested and other Scientist will try and disprove it, and that's how the experimental method works.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: peter vlar

Actually science changing its story is incredibly negative.


what a load of crap that is. There is absolutely nothing negative about expanding our knowledge and adding new data to demonstrate more of the big picture.



the story is ensured to never be true, always changing and being influenced by other theories....never EVER proving anything because it is designed to not do so.


Again, it's not an ever changing story. It's a gain in new knowledge and/or data which gives us a more complete picture. New information doesn't falsify or invalidate any Scientific Theories, it expands our knowledge of them. Learning that H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis definitively engaged in admixture doesn't falsify or or "disprove" the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, it adds to the body of knowledge already in place and provides further evidence in support of the MES.

You seem to think that learning something new somehow invalidates what was previously understood. it doesn't alter the mechanisms known to be in play within the evolutionary processes that are understood to be in play currently. Finding a new Hominid like Denisovans again, only adds to what we already. knew it doesn't invalidate or falsify anything that was already known.

So how exactly is learning something new a negative here?



if science is always changing and being proven utterly wrong what is the sense in preaching it as truth.


But it isn't always changing and being proven wrong. That is nothing more than your ipersonal, incorrect perceptions because you somehow feel threatened by people who have a better understanding of any field of science that has the potential to support Evolution.



These baloney truth affect all the other new theories that come after them, endlessly.


But for some odd reason, you haven't provided any examples to support any of your statements throughout this entire post. Exactly which "baloney truth" have affect which other theories? Can you actually cite a single piece of supporting evidence? Or is this just more of your willful ignorance and confirmation bias peeking through?


Some fields of science have to this point offered NOTHING to us, but fantasy belief systems that pretend to be interesting and helpful but to me they are as dull as all religions.


Which fields offer nothing? Who or what should they be offering something to?Which "fantasy belief systems" are you referring to specifically? You make broad sweeping generalizations and purposely avoid making statements or comments with any degree of specificity. Which, to be completely honest, says a lot about how well you can actually support your statements with facts... you can't. Or worse, you simply refuse to/won't.


Unbelievable how bad people want to make all these unproven theories facts...like a parasitical disease.


It would appear that you have absolutely no idea what a Scientific Theory actually is or how one works.


A Scientific Theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

My parents never had proof their great great grandparents existed. They only had stories and fragments of recollections recited by their parents.

Hearsay evidence.

Your turn




posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO




Actually science changing its story is incredibly negative. The story is ensured to never be true, always changing and being influenced by other theories....never EVER proving anything because it is designed to not do so.


Negative? It's called progress and advancing humankind's knowledge and it's why nobody believes that the Sun revolves around Earth anymore. Mind you, given that some people believe in a FE there probably are some retards out there that do believe that.

Negative? Maybe only in your head.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

arent scientific laws unchanging though ? they are seen to be 99.9% certain
laws can be contradicted by new evidence but they still give the same results through the measurements and maths

so arent scientific laws of the universes for all intents and purposes "proven" fact !

science can safely say that these are the best answers , because of repeated testing
of course no one can be sure for certain that the 10 billionth run on the same experiment would give a different result !
because we can never be 100% certain .

In any case who can be really certain of anything given how fantastical and mysterious "life" actually is



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

if you are not actually going to address what i really wrote - then i CBA



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Dunno - I am not a scientist (I just have an interest) but as science does not know how everything works it is always going to be developing as human knowledge grows but i would leave it up to actual scientists to answer that one.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Ok so not my energy or my consciousness but the energy in the atoms that comprise my being
the energy from those atoms cannot be destroyed by the law of conservation of energy !


The complete energy of the system wont change as the energy in those atoms still remains , the atoms are just re-organised into a different state of being !



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Evolution would see everything change.
That's a law I can't see changing
edit on 1-4-2019 by ManyMasks because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Phantom423

Your wrong science deals with hypothesis and theory, and theories can change through further research... Scientists never state something as fact.
That's one of the first things they teach you, so in a sense everything is unproven, instead of facts if the theory is good it will become a law, and still it will be tested and other Scientist will try and disprove it, and that's how the experimental method works.


That's completely wrong. Theories are compilations of facts. Those facts are what paint the best known picture based on evidence. To say that nothing is a fact is laughable. Yeah, it's not 100% absolute truth, but scientific facts exist. Theories NEVER become laws, that's complete nonsense. A law is a calculation or measurement of a constant, while a theory is a well substantiated explanation for something based on observations and rigorous testing.


edit on 4 1 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)







 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join