It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by palehorse23

Most religions believe that mankind has only existed for 6000 years, and that God may have created the earth thousands, millions, or even billions of years before he created man.

posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by cybrseer

That's not entirely true. Most religions teach a much older earth- sometimes in the billions of years- and believe in "cyclic ages."

But has anyone found out how they determined the age of this skull yet? It seems we still don't know. Was it due to the fossil layer where it was discovered or another method?

posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:59 PM
Joseph P Farrell claims in his book "Ark of a Million Years" that there is in fact 2 Earths superimposed over each other. There is the Earth of a Spiritual Nature that merged with the Physical Earth at the time of the flood, which was a purging event to clense the Earth for the arrival of all the life on the Ark.

This pre-merged Earth of the physical nature was created back at the original construciton of the Universe, whereas this newer 6000 year old Earth is spoken about in the bible as its the one which religion continually refer to. In essence he claims that the reason the Earth Appears both Old and New is covered by this theory.

As for how the 2 merged yo would need to read the book as it complex and I wont go into it here.

posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:05 PM
The Bible makes no claim of the age of the earth.
I read book by the world renowned Hebrew scholar, John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound. He states the intention of the original text of Genesis was to describe the creation of the garden for man, not the creation of the universe and earth. What gets translated "In the beginning" from Genesis 1:1 speaks of an indeterminate period of time, not a single moment of time. So there could have been billions of years before the 7 day account started.

[edit on 2/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]

posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:24 PM
There are some that believe that there was a race. That was living on the Earth before Adam and Eve. But they were destroy. Because they sided with Satan.This race now call themself Draconians.They hate the people of earth with a passion.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by kennethmd]

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:04 PM
reply to post by kennethmd

Probably the same people that Cain mentioned and feared when he was bannished from Eden.
Also read about some people that believe Adam originally had taken a first wife, Lillith, but she was the original girl gone wild and left Adam or was bannished from the garden, can't remember.

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by gunner36
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.

HAHAHAHA friggin awesome

I hate cleaning up coffee spit from monitors

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by kennethmd

Probably the same people that Cain mentioned and feared when he was bannished from Eden.
Also read about some people that believe Adam originally had taken a first wife, Lillith, but she was the original girl gone wild and left Adam or was bannished from the garden, can't remember.

Lillith is a Hebrew legend. They said she a demon that have sex with you in your dream and she also steal your kids from you.

posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 04:33 PM

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].

This would explain early man living around 1k year lifespan as recorded in the Bible to procreate and such, then lifespans gradually decreasing (down to about 60-70yrs old)until recently where modern medicine can aid to keep you alive till around 100.

posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Equinox99
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?

Well what the thinking is now, (and this does mathematically workout due to the strength of gravity or lack of I should say) is this is just an impact, from other universes, or membranes colliding with each other from a multi- verse. So now the question is What contains the multi-verse and how did that get there.

Either way its pretty arrogant of man to think God(what ever form of higher being you believe) took the time to personalize earth. Maybe he/she/it is the great programmer of this biological computer, but I highly doubt we are very special in it. We are just the product of a lot of in/then statements lol

posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 06:18 PM
Well, most dating, there is a slight flaw in its logic ... it relies on a bit of 'faith'

We must have faith that patterns exist as they believe they have.

Problem is, no one was around recording with scientific instruments back then to empirically verify those claims.

There has been no long term measurements of pole shifts, so, an assumption, even an educated one, is still nothing more than a guess.

Carbon dating relies on consistent cosmic radiation for the past 60,000 years that cannot be verified.

Sediments, volcanic eruptions, pretty much anything they can used to try and verify, is still based on measurements that cannot be verified without a time machine, and also placing a device in a safe location that can measure time to the current day, to verify that time travel experiment as well.

I know, it is a pain isn't it? But to be truly skeptical, you would have to see the evidence to believe it, well, I don't see anything but theories and postulations. The biggest one is the big bang. The date it happened has changed, now it will need to be again, because other unverifiable evidence says now the furthest galaxy we have seen is nearly as far away as they claim the universe is old.

But again, their data and evidence of how far away, how old is all based on assumptions and guesses ... since, we can not physically verify it. It is no different than a blurry picture of a ufo. It is not proof, but a guess. Red shift blue shift, dimness, pulses, dark matter. It is all guess work. Problem is, light bends, light can be slowed and accelerated by gravity and other means. We can do this in a lab.

So, we cannot verify much of anything off this planet or on it. They can make all the guesses they want, but until there is absolute proof, nothing more than a bunch of eggheads agreeing on something that sounds astounding.

Remember, your scrutiny needs to be put to equal use and veracity on each claim to not be biased.

At the moment, most science, not all, is based on mainly faith with a bit of truth. Same can be said for the Bible/religion. They have found places in these texts and evidence of some of the stories, so some things in them are based on facts, some things still require faith.

Subscribe to which ever religion you choose, but I guess you can't call the religion of science Scientology, now can you?!

I don't mind healthy skepticism, but let's keep it healthy and use it on all claims no matter how plausible or not, no matter how studied or not the person claiming them are ... it is only fair.

posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
The biggest one is the big bang. The date it happened has changed, now it will need to be again, because other unverifiable evidence says now the furthest galaxy we have seen is nearly as far away as they claim the universe is old.

Actually this is not remotely true, and I mean no offense at all but you should really look into how they measure these thing before speaking about it.
They actually have the Big Bang down to about 10 milliseconds before the singularity and when you say the oldest galaxies are as old as the big bang if as old you mean 750 Million years after, I assume you are talking about the very young galaxy in the Abell 2218 Cluster

and this Galaxy shows a time at the end of the dark ages after the big bang when hydrogen atoms started to first form but Stars didn't shine yet. But of course this is just a theory right =) Sorry that was sarcastic. See these are based on Mathematics and actual physical proof rather then people 5000 plus years ago trying to figure out where they came from. Its not only apple to oranges it apples to rocks.

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 12:32 AM
Still, PROVE it. Prove that they are right. It is light. Analyze it all you want, but without direct evidence that their methods are correct, then it is just words.

Can you honestly say you fully understand the math involved and can show it, the numbers, and how they drew their conclusions. That the evidence is so grand, that it is completely believable, without a doubt the truth, and we will never have a discovery that finds anything to prove otherwise?

If the universe is growing, where are we? In the middle? The opposite end? If this was 13 billion light years away, 13 billion years ago, how far away is it now? So, less than a billion years after being an infinitesimal size of near infinite mass, the universe was a bare minimum of 13 billion light years across, just from this point to our current location. How big is the universe at this moment?

They say that they discovered a galaxy current estimates of about 13.5 billion light years away. The possibility that some are further than that, but haven't been able to verify it yet.


Prove it.

That is a claim, make proof. (not you personally)

I make no claims, just stating doubts and that there is no way to empirically back up statements claiming something is 13 billion light years away and the universe is 14 billion years old, or any of THEIR claims have substantial, irrefutable proof.

There is not a consensus of how the universe came to be. Is it membrane theory? Did the big bang happen because in a multi-dimensional existence two things clashed to make something new? Is the universe all alone in some inconceivable emptyness? If not, what space is that space in? It must be in space, if it is expanding, even a vacuum has volume, and that volume is greater than the object that is expanding within it. Are there other universes? Will we collide with one?

Where is all the answers from science?

You know, if I have a program, I can plug in data until I find the combination that nets the results I want, and claim that the errors prior to that was finding the proper calibration and adjustments for the programs inaccuracies.

What makes the galaxies stay together, there is not enough visible mass for our current theory. Must be invisible matter. That works. When Plasma Cosmology is just as valid.

Rogue planets, they shouldn't exist because our model of relatively spherical objects depends on accretion surrounding a young star. Although we find systems that don't fit the model as we like it to, those must be anomalies.

What I am really saying is, our perceptions are limited, that leads to our analysis and conclusions to be limited as well. Things have to react this way or that. But, just because we have observed requirements for our short time, with our limited equipment ... we don't know everything. If we did, then it is a sad day, because there will be no more advancement.

See, I am saying that the Big Bang aging the universe and galaxies rely on things that cannot be proven. I am not saying they are impossible. ANYTHING is possible.

If you start to pick apart science, as it picks apart other things, you will find holes in it. But that is a good thing. Nothing should go without having been analyzed properly.

You can't record data for 1000 years and think you have the answers for all of existence.

And, until some serious proof can be given that your cells and mine were both on the head of a pin 14 billion years ago, with no offense, then how am I to believe it just because someone with a degree says it to be so.

Don't limit yourself, and don't believe everything you hear. You don't have to believe me either. I still respect your opinion and your views.

I think you misinterpret my stance. You think I am just rambling at the mouth, though I may not explain myself well in this topic, I do know of what I intend to imply. I take no offense to your rebuttal, but, they may claim their mathematics are spot on, but, of course, I could stare at a picture and figures and come up with a brilliant story as well.

You may be trying to take a shot at me, thinking, this weirdo believes people who wrote the Torah over people with computers and calculators.

What I believe has NO relevance. What I am asking is for people to realize, they may not know nearly as much as you think they do.

I am just tired of silly claims by science with no real evidence to back it up. Such as they do for everything. They claim to know the core, but, we discover new things about it. We barely know what is under our oceans and below the cosmetic layers of the surface (find old buried cities consistently that require redating the beginning of civilizations and societies because past science fact has become outdated and ultimately wrong), but we supposedly can detail exactly what other planets are made of, their environments, etc. and there are not billions of people crawling all over them.

Look, I don't care what you believe. Just respect others views, I mean, you don't have to respect mine I suppose, not telling you what to do

You like the big bang, think that the universe is 14 billion years old, and science already has most of the answer, fine with me. I think it is great you have that security in your convictions and belief in the science and system.

and your sarcasm, didn't work, because it IS just a theory ... down to 10 ms
brilliant, are they not? /sarcasm ... physical proof is not light waves that have traveled through space and been manipulated any number of times, no matter how they try to mathematically explain it, the math may be right, but the inputs and how the inputs were derived don't need to be.

I will hold my doubts. Math is much more solid than science, that is why I always loved the subject, even before school (bit of a math nerd back in the day). Until some real, tangible evidence comes up. We can star gaze and hypothesize and dream away. It is quite fun, but it is not fact.

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 02:00 AM
Actually they do have it down to about 10 milliseconds, and here is how the math proves it. The same math they use here they are able to predict what will happen and it happens based on that math, this is a proof and pretty hard to explain away. 2+2 IS 4 or is that a theory? When the math works out so you can predict events I would call that a pretty good proof, IMHO Honestly look into M-Theory, etc. granted there is a lot of stuff that we still can't explain no doubt, but I will say again, mathematical proofs to the beliefs and just plain faith of people trying to explain their existence 2000+ years ago is sooo apples and oranges, it just doesn't compare. So lets agree to disagree. I believe the math which is able to predict cosmic events it way more compelling then anything else out there. This is the same math that takes us back to the singularity and even beyond it =)

PS thats one of my favorite quotes from Futurama.

Just a little history and why I believe in this more that a 6000 yr old earth.
Not sure how much you have looked into or not, so its just a quick reference starting guide. You may know all about it already but in case you don't

[edit on 17-2-2008 by ShiftTrio]

[edit on 17-2-2008 by ShiftTrio]

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 09:31 PM
im a man of faith, but don't believe the earth is only 6000 years old. i believe its millions or billions years old. the genesis account in my opinion is a recreation for man to inhabit. I believe there was a world that then was possibly rebelling against God and was destroyed. God destroyed the world with the flood in noah's days because the world was filled with wickedness, we know there was an ice age, and we know from prophecy in the bible the world will be purged by fire and recreated again.


posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 08:49 AM
Those who believe in the 6000yr old Earth theory will always question the method of dating for such objects,its their only defence.

As stated already on here,the Bible does not state exactly how old the Earth is,the idea that it does through the genaeology line is highly flawed.

Firstly though,God's day is like a 1000yrs to humans.So the Earth was already 5000yrs old before man was made.By the time Adam & Eve are thrown out of Eden the Earth is well over 7000yrs old.(Adam lived 930yrs.)
Between the birth of Adam and the time of the Flood is a span of roughly 1600yrs and,according to many scholars the Flood happened in 2300 BC.

So we're somewhere in the region of 10,000yrs.
Add the time from the Flood to now and we're getting on for 15,000yrs!

Yet this figure can't be accurate,(and i don't mean coz of my bad
but because there are books missing from the Bible,the geneaology line is incomplete.
The Bible itself lists over 40 books.(only 1 we know of.) There are over 25 in the Apocrypha (all can be found on line.) and 16 in the Deuterocanonical.(all can be found on line.)
So adding up dates in the Bible means you will get an incorrect date.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:14 PM
You have to think out of the box people, you are trying to look at time as a straight line but you can't because it was not a straight line in the beginning while chaos was still stabilizing.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by palehorse23
well #1 the radio carbon dating metho dis proved wrong and not accurate #2 not all creationist believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old i believe the earth could be billions of yrs old but the second creation of inhabitants of earth was only 6000 yrs ago we are not od the earth is

[edit on 24-6-2008 by iesus_freak]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:05 AM

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Still, PROVE it. Prove that they are right. It is light. Analyze it all you want, but without direct evidence that their methods are correct, then it is just words.

Problem is, you're attempting to determine the full process from WITHIN the process, so your results will be skewed. I'll explain in a second.

Originally posted by AshleyD
I really don't care how old the earth is because I will still believe God made it.

I agree. I'm one of those that does believe in the "young earth" theory, but it's not critical to my faith.

One thing I'd like to point out is something I call "temporal inertia". Consider a pendulum. If you pull the pendulum back and set it to swinging, it swings back and forth with whatever force it was first set into motion. If, after it is set into motion, you attempt to gauge exactly WHEN the pendulum was set in motion, you can come up with all sorts of elaborate equations based on angle, trajectory of swing, speed, and whatnot, but all you have to measure is the pendulum itself. You will never be able to take into account the initial force of manipulation, so the pendulum could have been started five minutes or five years ago, and you'd never know the difference.

I think creation is the same way. God set a broad process in motion, creating a detailed past that lays a foundation for the present, giving it momentum to push it headlong into the future.

And don't worry about the details. Remember, as we're living in the present, we're viewing the pendulum from WITHIN the swing. All we'll be able to see is the swing, not the Hand that set the pendulum to swinging. So what if there's evidence from sixty gazillion years ago! If there is a God that created the universe, how much harder would it have been for Him to create the light from the stars already EN ROUTE to earth, or animal remains in various states of decay? Makes much more sense to create the universe with a sense of inertia than to create it with no past at all, as from a dead stop.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by nashdude]

posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by jakyll

i dont get where people get this from, saying things like "1 day to god is like 1000 years to us" did god tell you this? or are you just making it up to make the bible sound less stupid? i think its obvious the bible was written long ago by people who had none of the knowledge we have to day, so with the evidence available at the time (whether it was actual evidence or religious belief) 6000 yrs is what they believed to be correct, so when trying to explain our origins it is what they wrote down.

now we know that is COMPLETELY INCORRECT we know that the universe is atleast 13.7 billion yrs old because the furthest object we can see is 13.7 billion lights years away, so it must have been there 13.7 billion years ago! now people will probably say "well how do we now how far away the object is?" but im not going to waste my time explaining but the method is tested peer-reviewed and excepted, but it seems none of that is enough to convince people who choose to be willfully ignorant anyway!

The main point is though none of this means there is no god! it just means the written word in the bible (written by man) is incorrect, but in religion it seems mistakes are never changed or updated (were as science progresses in this very manner
) but an acceptance of science and evidence is not a denial of god, but a denial of science and evidence is a denial of reality.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in