How Old is Earth? 6,000 Yrs or 6 Billion Yrs...Or?

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by MikeHawke

 

Erm, you're not seriously claiming that there's no difference between the skull of a Homo Sapiens and a Homo Neanderthalensis are you?

www.nhm.ac.uk...

www.somso.de...

this is an example of micro evolution. its not like it became a bird or a dog. it stayed the same thing, it just went through a few physical changes. it didn't jump species.. like the finches beak when it shrank in size, the jaw got smaller because we eat more processed foods.

reply to post by Quadrivium


Look at how many people believe in Macro-evolution. Try telling one that it doesn't happen and watch their heads spin

^ whats to read here?"entire" is a pretty big word for this small sentence, but from that small sentence, and cant tell if you believe in macro evolution or not. its not very clear

I cant tell**.. I was pretty drunk while writing those last ones.

Originally posted by MikeHawke

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by MikeHawke

 

Erm, you're not seriously claiming that there's no difference between the skull of a Homo Sapiens and a Homo Neanderthalensis are you?

www.nhm.ac.uk...

www.somso.de...

this is an example of micro evolution. its not like it became a bird or a dog. it stayed the same thing, it just went through a few physical changes. it didn't jump species.. like the finches beak when it shrank in size, the jaw got smaller because we eat more processed foods.

Prepare to have your mind blown. Macro-evolution is not a real thing. It's not an external process separate from micro evolution. It is a misnomer. Macro evolution is merely the observation of micro evolution on a very large time scale. If micro evolution exists, macro evolution HAS to exist. They are the same thing, one is short term change, and one is long term. They are both carried by the same mechanisms as evolution (genetic mutations + natural selection). Thinking that macro evolution would EVER happen in the short term (ie human giving birth to a dog) is ludicrous. It's not about sudden changes, it's about recessive traits becoming dominant traits because they help the species survive or give them an advantage. Can an ape suddenly turn into a human. Of course not but over 7 million years, that ape could change slightly into another ape, which turns into another ape, and eventually the changes become different enough from the original that the species can no longer breed together. That is how a new species is born. Looking at homo sapiens and Neanderthals, they were cousins, really subspecies of the same ancestor. One stayed in Africa longer while the other spread across Europe. If humans, apes and other creatures can change slightly over time, what makes you think that over a LONG time, millions of years, that the changes wouldn't add up? To believe in micro but not macro evolution is downright silly, because they are the same thing, driven by the same process.

Originally posted by mythos
reply to post by paradox

 

there are less offensive ways to state your perspective. and while i agree i think it is silly to be such a literalist as to interpret the world as being only 6000 years old, i do think there is a less "rude" way to express this. otherwise, you have derailed a thread, and devalued your argument. especially when the OP asks for civility.

I do not care if you, or anyone else is offended by my statements. You are not entitled to anything.

Text The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old because they accept a literal interpretation of the Bible.

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9


I have heard that story quite a few times but have never had it explained to me as to your proof of your statement that the world is 4.5 billion years old. How do you come up with a number such as that?

I am a creationist myself but have no biblical proof that this world is only 6,000 years old. The first three days of replenishing the earth had no universal time for the Adamic civilization. In fact time was not incorporated for Adam till the fourth day. I have never read in the KJV bible that this world was only 6,000 years of 24 hours old. I know many people assume that the Genesis account refers to a literal 24 hour of 6 days creation but actually it does not state that at all. In all fairness the name callers are simply ignorant name callers who are full of hate and distort facts.

This world is much older than the Adamic civilization but how old is a matter of assumption and not provable. It could have had many other civilizations before Adam but I am not privy to that information and neither are you. You can assume many things but assumption is not proof. Moses is credited as being the author of the Genesis account and in his Genesis account he states very clearly that the first three days of producing had no sun to mark a 24 hour time sequence. The sun was placed in its pattern on the fourth Day. A day being from one light to darkness to another light. The light of the first three days was known as the primeval light or the light of the Creator. That is explained in outside literature.

Actually no one knows the age of the universe or this world just as no one actually knows whether or not the Creator is finished creating. It is assumed that the creator has finished all of His creating but this is just an assumption. Moses does not tell us that God is all finished with creating. Moses stated that the Creator rested on the seventh day and we assume the rest. Our modern science declares that this universe is still expanding at a very fast rate. If the universe is still expanding then it is not finished in creation is it? We assume that it was but Moses did not say this. Did the Creator rest on the seventh day and then continue creating and is He still creating today?

If the Creator is still creating today then that would explain the expansion of the universe would't it? Would it also explain this mad argument of evolution? What if all of us are wrong and there is no such thing as evolution but instead a continuous creation and death of everything? We can assume many things but are we as bright as we assume we are?

reply to post by Seede


People are getting distorted between two seperate issues here. The Earth could be Billions if not Trillions of years old. Hell, it could be 10,000 years, who really knows. When we are talking about the 6000 years, I actually think we are talking about a repeating cycle.

If the Great Flood did happen, I would expect there to be nothing left except whatever was on the Ark. Anything prior to that would of been destroyed. Could that be the ending and beginning of this 6000 year cycle and possibly a reason why we sit here now debating about the issue? In my opinion, it has nothing to do with the age of the Planet. Every 6000 years could be an end/beinning of a new age. But who really knows...

Text People are getting distorted between two seperate issues here. The Earth could be Billions if not Trillions of years old. Hell, it could be 10,000 years, who really knows. When we are talking about the 6000 years, I actually think we are talking about a repeating cycle.

reply to post by DarknStormy


@ DarknStormy

Yes I agree with you 100% -- I don't want people to think that I reject science because that is not the case here. I have a deep respect for all of the brilliant minds in this scientific world. If it were not for these minds of science and engineering we would still be in the stone age but some of the scientific fields have wannabees who have just enough education as to be smart but far from being a professional. In other words most will parrot what they have learned without the ability to advance the thought process. I see a lot of this on ATS as well as in daily life. You are absolutely honest in your thinking and I appreciate that.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Why would the two go hand in hand? It is obvious that where ever the 6000 yr old story came from was maybe talking about human history more than anything else. It is a known fact that the Earth has been here for Millions, if not Billions of years. Maybe humans evolved or something 6000 years ago and they used it as a starting point...

edit on 1-12-2012 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)

The 6,000 year claim comes from Bishop James Ussher, who died in 1656. He came up with it after adding up the ages of all the patriaches mentioned in the bible. For some bizarre reason people have taken this seriously.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
The 6,000 year claim comes from Bishop James Ussher, who died in 1656. He came up with it after adding up the ages of all the patriaches mentioned in the bible. For some bizarre reason people have taken this seriously.

What, he thought that the world was 6000 years old because of a few numbers in the bible?

Yes. I think he claimed that the word was in fact created on 23 October 4004 BC. After tea-time, obviously.

People have been using his work for years. Mostly laughing at it admittedly.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Well, one of the earlist settlements that we know about was Jericho, which was first settled in about 9,000 BC if I recall correctly. Damascus is almost as old.

Just a thought...
6000 years for creation + 4000 BC years (Adam to Jesus) = 10 000 Years
Less 1000 years for the day of rest = 9000 BC for Jericho......

Add 2000 AD years = 12 000 year old earth...

Like I said... Just a thought....

But it does not explain the fossils and the carbon dating and all the other things that the billion year old earth people will argue. And I'm inclined to agree...

So where does that leave us... Standing in the sandpit like a bunch of 5 year old's arguing over who's dad has the best car.. We will never agree.

Perhaps the Billion year old earth scientists could put their scientific mind's together and actually study the traditional creation theory... and visa versa. We might all be surprised... besides, when science took a leap of faith, we went from a flat earth to a round earth...

And in case you haven't worked it out, I'm a creationist who believes that God is scientist.... and when she created the universe, the earth and the laws that keep it all together, she put a lot of thought into it, but she had a little fun at the same time..

reply to post by where2oceansmeet


I think we have cycles which possibly bring catastrophes which cannot be pinpointed.. We can guestimate, speculate but until someone actually goes through one, we are chasing our tails. Some say a great catastrophe happened around 10468 b.c. Could this of been the fall of Jericho also? who knows.

Some say the great flood happened around 4000 b.c, others tend to go further back. But it seems as though civilisation takes a heavy hit and has to rebuild itself over and over again. From what I see in ancient texts, this happens in a 6000 - 7000 year timeframe. But thats only my opinion, I'm not saying it is correct.

I have to thank everyone in this thread.

I am learning so much more than I thought I might with this little thread. I have also been surpassed as to my ability to contribute with so many more knowledgeable members on the subject.

I am watching, reading and best of all, learning.

Thanks to all.

Peace

Originally posted by Seede
i]reply to post by DarknStormy

 

@ DarknStormy

Yes I agree with you 100% -- I don't want people to think that I reject science because that is not the case here. I have a deep respect for all of the brilliant minds in this scientific world.

Its not about rejecting science.. I think we need to seperate the two subjects because they possibly mean two different things and for all we know, religion could be pointing at the shorter cycle which could be the reason why they assume the world has only been here for 6000 years. Maybe thats all they know with fragments of what happened beforehand. They aren't actually saying the world is 6000 years old, they are saying that something stopped and we had a new beginning.

If it were not for these minds of science and engineering we would still be in the stone age but some of the scientific fields have wannabees who have just enough education as to be smart but far from being a professional. In other words most will parrot what they have learned without the ability to advance the thought process. I see a lot of this on ATS as well as in daily life. You are absolutely honest in your thinking and I appreciate that.

Science is a must. Without it we would simply know nothing.. But with science, we should be able to use ancient texts to clarify.. Is that he purpose of those texts? Unless we research and try to understand, we will never know. To say science is right and religion is wrong or vice versa is ridiculous. Religion is a first hand account in some cases, science can determine whether they are accurate. They can work hand in hand if we allow it.