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.

 

If the Earth is only 6000 years old, how do you explain this?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Alright all you believers of the notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old, as is often stated by people of religious faith. How do you explain things like this?

Skull is clue to early humans




BEIJING An almost complete human skull dating back 80,000 to 100,000 years has been found by scientists excavating a site in Xuchang, in the eastern Chinese province of Henan.


Skull of early Humans found




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Well for either side of that endless debate, the question grinds to a halt.

How was the skull dated?
Is that dating system reliable?
If the dating system is self-referential is there a different dating system able to be used?

And so on, and so on, and so on.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DogHead
 


Good point there. But, we all know that there are objects and such that have been substantially dated more than 6000 years old. My question still remains not only for this skull, but other objects as well. I know it is an endless debate, but still worth asking in my mind.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
God made it appear to be dated that old to, test your faith. I work with a guy that thinks the world is, I cant remember either 2000 or 6000 years old. When he first told me that I about spit the coffee I was drinking all over my computer screen. Whatever though to each their own, you wont change their mind, so it is better to just let it go. As stated before if not, you will just go round and round and round.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
In truth, the "6,000 Year Old Earth" calculation came to be in the 17th century from a priest who felt he could target the start of creation to the very day (but he jumped to many conclusions that I won't bring up here).

The thing is, there are massive gaping holes in both thoughts on the ages of the earth: both 6,000 years and billions of years. They both have their criticisms that can be backed up with scientific evidence.

As for the skull: Like another poster said, we will need to know what method they used to date this skull and see if their method is reliable. Discoveries and conclusions have been retracted before.

I think anyone with a brain can see the world and universe is over 6,000 years old. If we are wrong, we will eventually find out. Being wrong about geology and biology will not damn anyone to Hell, so to speak. If it is billions of years old, as some Christians and secularists believe, we will find that out, too. If it is hundreds of thousands or millions of years old, that will also be revealed.

As to the strata layers building up gradually over billions and billions of years raises some questions, too. It would seem erosion would be counteracting the stratum going up up up by erosion wearing it down down down. So what could counter this argument? That some strata layers would formed suddenly and through cataclysmic events. Very well, so we know strata layers can be formed rapidly as well. The formation of fossils taking millions upon millions of years is also under intense scrutiny and many believe they are formed more quickly.

Just my two cents. I really don't care how old the earth is because I will still believe God made it.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
What must be considered in these types of situations is that there are countless individuals and organizations that actively pursue artifact dating for the express purpose of establishing 'indisputable facts' to be used to disprove religious beliefs. Not to establish new facts in science or better the human race, but to attack faith.

Not saying that's so in this case, but that it's so in most cases.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by kaiheitain]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Im going to go out on a limb here and say that only those who choose to have their minds dictated to them instead of freeing their minds and utilizing such for themselves would ever believe that the world is only 6000 yrs old.

Not only is the idea idiotic (especially considering the evidence against such) but I highly doubt if i could trust the sanity of those who blindly believe this.

I definately wouldnt trust such a person to babysit my children.

If you blindly subscribe to this preposterous theory, you should be ashamed of yourself. They have padded rooms for you somewhere Im sure....



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grock
If you blindly subscribe to this preposterous theory, you should be ashamed of yourself. They have padded rooms for you somewhere Im sure....


It's the mind set of some people on both extreme ends of the bell curve for dating systems that always put me in mind of the film Dark City... where aliens who are a lot like MIB, especially the Mothman MIBs, have created an artificial environment. In such an environment then yes, even the fossils are fake. Likewise the same sort of deep paranoid fantasies lie behind a lot of Philip K. Dick and Phillip Jose Farmer's World of Tiers series...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 


The Bible didn't specifically say that the Earth is 6,000years old, only the genealogies of the people in the Bible is about 6,000years old.

Adam was created only on the 6th day. On that 6th day of creation, we count the genealogies to be about 6,000 years old.

The concept of time was only on the 4th day of creation. It tells us to mark seasons, and days, and years. This is where the Sun, the Stars, the planets, the constellations, the moon were created so we are able to mark or tell seasons, years, months and days by their movements.

On the first day of creation, it was mentioned "Let there be light". The Sun, Stars and etc. was not even mentioned. The "light" that was mentioned here is the Photons. The creation of photons was on the first day. God called the Photons "day" and the absence of Photons "night." Nothing was mentioned to mark this as day, months, and years. Or, as time indicators.

The evening and morning that was mentioned on every day of creation, was only used as a separator to indicate the stages of creation. 1 day cannot equal to evening and morning as it is only about 12hours. It should be from morning to morning or from evening to evening, which is about 24hours or 1 day. This is indicative that the "day" mentioned is not at all relative to our 24hour time.

The time indicated here is not relative to our time, it is relative to God who is eternal. 1 day with God is like a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 1 day relative to us is 1 Earth rotation. 1 year relative to us is 1 rotation around the Sun.

On the 3rd day of creation, God created the vegetations, plants, and trees. Of course, the seeds were to be created first in order to produce them. It takes time for it to grow. 1 day is not sufficient if we were to take a literal 1 day of creation as 24hours relative to our time.

On the 4th day, God created the Sun. The sun was needed for photosynthesis by the plants. This in turn produce life giving oxygen as a byproduct. Oxygen is crucial for animals to survive. It takes time for oxygen to fill the Earth. When the right level is achieved, God can now create the animals.

On the 5th day of creation, God created the animals - in the sea and on land. God told them to be fruitful and increase in number. Again, it takes time for the animals to mate to produce offspring in order to increase in number. This is indicative again that the "day" mentioned is not "24hrs day" at all as it is impossible and chaotic for the animals to produce offspring in such a short time of 24hrs day relative to us. Time is needed for the fertilized egg to mature and give offspring. It takes time as well for the offspring to reach adulthood to mate.

The animals breathes in the oxygen produced by the plants and trees, and the animals exhales carbon dioxide which is needed by the plants. The plants then synthesize the carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates. The carbohydrates produce by the plants gives food and energy to the animals eating it. The waste products of animals from eating the food gives nutrients to the soil and in turn give nourishment and health to the plants. We can see a perfect harmony of living things.

So, we can all see and understand that it takes a considerable amount of time for things to grow and multiply. Having only a day for each creation is incredibly impossible.

When reading Genesis, we should always take into serious consideration that the time indicated is not the time relative to our time. The "day" indicated is only a indicator to separate each creation to categorize it accordingly to the balance of nature which God created.

You can study Genesis and see how well designed the stages of creation is. If there is no design at all, the animals could have been created on the first day. Where's the plant? They cannot survive, so they die. Where's the water? The plant cannot survive and they die. Where's the Sun? If these were created at a blind random process, everything would be so chaotic and nothing can, if at all, exists.

If these were created in 24hours, everything would overlap and everything would be in its primary stages of development. The balance of nature would not exist at all and everything would die. Everything takes time and patience. You cannot rush creation.

Things needed to be put into order, design, and time in order for creation to work.

So the debate about a 6,000 year old Earth should be rethought and put into a proper perspective.

Science is not an enemy to your faith. Lack of understanding is more an enemy. Science by itself is self correcting. It does not chose sides. It is only a tool to understand nature. It is not a belief system. Men just came into the picture and mistranslated it, both opposition and proposition. Each one has its own errors.

One should not be too cocksure in everything.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
"A tousand years is a day to the lord".
Bible
2 Peter 3:8
So by exactly whose definition of time are we gauging by?
Mans? or
the Lords?
If it took GOD a day to create something, that very well could be a thousand years in our time. I think it leaves plenty open for how old the Earth actually is.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
A question I have had for some time is if the Earth is really 6,000 years old how do you explain John Mccain?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
As we all know, time is relative to the speed of the observer. If I could increase my speed to near the speed of light, I could measure off a short distance of time between breakfast and lunch while you age to a senior citizen.

Now, go back and look at the first chapter of Genesis. Who is God talking to? Who is the story relative to? There's no one there but God. If God is infinite energy, and every where at once, then his speed must be infinite and beyond or at light speed. Given that bit of knowledge, when a day goes by from his point of view, how much time has transpired here on Earth?

Of course this doesn't answer everything. It's just a rough theory, but it does point out how your perspective of the Bible may not be exactly the reality of what is.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
The theory that the earth is 6000 years old could be interpreted as being the time that we are sure there has been what we would call Modern Man.

What I am trying to say is that we have bones and evidence of man at different stages of development such as Neanderthal, Australopithecus etc but man's skeletal structure as we know it may only be approx 6000 years old. (If you believe in the evolution of man, that is).

We can carbon date many things in this planet many hundreds of thousands of years. The structure of the earth is MORE than 6000 years.


I have a hard time trying ti express this thought ...sorry



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
People that scoff at the age of the Earth being 6,000 years old remind me of a bratty little first grader that is so full of himself because he just learned that 2+2=4.
He doesn't even have a clue about non-linear mathematics, logarithms and exponential calculations.
Truth is both Science and Religion are correct based on which point of reference you decide to use.

We all know if we travel through the Universe at the speed of light for a short time, once we decide to come back home all our loved ones will have aged beyond recognition. Your point of reference would have been different from theirs. Same came be said about Earth

You cannot measure time on a linear scale because if the Big Bang occurred way out there many billions of years ago and if every planet in the Universe originated from this BigBang then that would suggest that the Universe is still expanding.

You also need to take into account the period of instability that occured from that very instantaeous moment of chaos (the initial event that sparked the BigBang) until the period where time finally stabilized (where time finally began taking on linear characteristics, but still not quite) could prove that both Science and Religion are correct.

First day of creation could have been a Billion years old based on our measurement of time, the second day of creation could have been several hundred Million years old, the third day of creation could have been a few Million years, and so on.

The best analogy I can give is scientific, a simple RC Tiime Constant of Electronics.
During the first Time Constant the capacitor charges to 63% of the total voltage available.
The second Time Constant it continues to charge for another 63% of the remaining.
It continues to charge for the remaining 3 time constants where it can be considered fully charged but it never does charge to 100% because it can't


Link here


[edit on 30-1-2008 by Alxandro]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
if the Big Bang occurred way out there many billions of years ago and if every planet in the Universe originated from this BigBang then that would suggest that the Universe is still expanding.

Yes. That's exactly what's happening. The Universe is in fact expanding at an increasing speed.



The light that does arrive here all seems to bear the same message: the universe is expanding.

What puzzles astronomers most now is not that the universe is expanding, but that the rate of this expansion seems to be increasing.

www.exploratorium.edu...


It does appear that every thing came from an infinite singularity.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
What the real mind boggling thing here: Where did that infinite singularity come from? If it was always there...then how did it get there?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


..and now it would appear that time is finally catching up with the expansion of the Universe.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
6000 years = 2000 yrs of Pre-Torah + 2000 years of Torah + 2000 years of Post-Torah.

Sources : Rabbinic.


Current paradigm translation :

- 4000 = Sumer
- 2000 = Abraham
0 = Christ Yeshua
+ 2000 = Now.

The 6000-yrs-old-earth theory is to be understood as the 6000 yrs HISTORY theory.

Bible gives allegorical/symbolical/kabbalistical datas as it is Abrahamic (Mosaïc/Josiasic) "science".

Let who has a brain understand.







[edit on 30-1-2008 by Rigel]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


um...it may have always been there.


reply to post by Alxandro
 


you can still measure time relative to our observation via radioactive decay...
you're basically pseudosciencing this one

and you say that religion is correct here...but in how? you didn't actually show that the 6000-10000 year figure is in any way valid

[edit on 1/31/08 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
You can call me a pseudoscientist if you like but I am not a scientist and don't claim to be one, I'm just thinking out of the box here.

My feelings are carbon dating, or whatever method is currently being used, can actually measure this radioactive decay or non linear actual BigBang time and still manage to apply an equivalent linear unit of measurement for our feeble minded purposes.

Don't get stuck in the rut of thinking linearly , because to answer your question, in this example time is not quite linear yet.

According to Genesis, Man was created on the sixth day.
If you consider each time constant in this example as a Genesis day, this would put the sixth day at the point where the time curve begins to flatten and stabilize, yet not yet linear.

To take it further still and break the day by hours, then the AM hours would had been much longer [maybe equalling SEVERAL thousand linear years] than the PM hours [..a FEW thousand linear years].

Add them all up and you may actually have the hundred thousand years of Mans existence.

The history of time [oxymoron?] is a parabola, not a straight line.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join