Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

6 Days IS 15.75 Billion Years - Time Dilation and the Expansion of the Universe are Evident Axioms

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Time Dilation and the Expansion of the Universe are Evident Axioms, as is the biblical narrative. Why? It is told by the perspective of God and not man. Consider the evidence.

George Schroeder in the first Video below:


"Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.

Schroeder's formal theological training in biblical, talmudic and kabalistic interpretation includes fifteen years of study under the late Rabbi Herman Pollack, Rabbi Chaim Brovender and Rabbi Noah Weinberg, of blessed memory."


LINK

I present definitive evidence that the Bible story of Six literal days, according to God's perspective, are literally 15.75 billion years. There can be no question now. Genesis 1 and 2 represent the timeline of our current cosmology. Not only do they match, but the events of each day, as depicted in Genesis, are precisely what the Bible narrative outlines.



Now that you have the evidence, consider watching the move, The Genesis Code, free on Netflix. Here is a clip that explains what the previous video just outlined.



Beyond this topic, here is another thread that I did a while back considering other related aspects of the same. LINK





edit on 23-1-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Here is the first video in the series listed above. There are five total.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Wow!!! I'm a Christian, but I can't believe that what I've suspected for a long time has actually now been proven. Totally amazing & great find!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I'm not a Christian and find the alternative explanations regarding the creation of the Universe to be odd.

Relativity itself states there are frames of reference for observation of time. What happens to us, as we are in 'one' frame of reference could appear to be 14 billion years may be only 6 days to one with a different frame of reference.


So for some, you can't prove a negative and therefore, proving hyper-inflation of the universe is NOT the work of God doesn't sit well even though they espouse it's occurrence as fact.

On the other hand.... I'm happy remaining an agnostic pagan.


edit on 1/24/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I still don't think it really works


Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.

Day 2: Heaven

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.

Day 6: Land animals and people

So if 6 days is 15 billion years that would mean that a days is billions of years and the days are horribly out of order, they are still wrong.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockerchic4God
Wow!!! I'm a Christian, but I can't believe that what I've suspected for a long time has actually now been proven. Totally amazing & great find!


I don't mean any offense by this at all, but that doesn't even come close to proving biblical creationism.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I can't watch the vids due to data usage restrictions. So am I to understand that each 'day' referenced to in the origin of the earth and all it's denizens in the first verses of the Genesis are inaccurate but all the other references to the word 'day' in the Bible equal 24 hours. Or does it mean it may have rained for more than 40 days and forty nights? Or that Jesus fasted for years? It just seems out there. Maybe I'll get a chance to watch the vids another time.

I have a problem with this idea and the fact that some people claim that Jesus didn't really make 'wine' at the wedding party; it was just fruit juice. Yet allllll the other times the word 'wine' is mentioned, it really meant WINE.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I did a post here somewhere on the Genesis Code when it first came out.

Excellent movie, does a great job of showing the bible in a scientific theoretical view.

As a layman, I always believed the bible was not literal. But see, pushing the idea that it is literal and crazy, keeps many people from taking it seriously.

Everyone has an agenda.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Hmm, okay let´s assume that you´re right, and the bible did actually meant it like you said it did.

What about the hardcore christians who say that the earth has to be 20.000 or something years old?

Where do we draw the line? Will we accept the ten commandments but neglect the parts about slavery as outdated?

It seems to me like you´re really REALLY trying to hold on to your christian faith in spite of the scientific knowledge that you maybe start to understand.

All in all, it is a rather weak argument. Trying to reinterpret the bible to fit modern scientific knowledge is understandable, but it doesn´t make it any better.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I heard about that theory a couple of years ago, well at least it is interesting..



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Couple of things:

No one (except a creationist God) can state what the Universe is in its totality and therefore;
No one actually knows the age of the Universe.


If anyone actually can prove what the Universe is composed up of ...(first step might be a unified field theory, explanation of a Black Hole, a Quantum Gravity origin proof for e.g.); just note it down below and we can then set about having a sensible discussion.

Once we agree what the Universe is, we can then set about dating it as currently; we only seem to observe one aspect of it although other unseen apsects affect us (see Gravity, Locality et al.).

The irony of this theory is that it relies on one made up number (6 days) being correlated to another made up number (15.9 Billion) to form a random correlation....the author is to be applauded for his Quantum comedy genius if nothing else.

edit on 28-1-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 





1) What about the hardcore christians who say that the earth has to be 20.000 or something years old?

2) Where do we draw the line? Will we accept the ten commandments but neglect the parts about slavery as outdated?

3) It seems to me like you´re really REALLY trying to hold on to your christian faith in spite of the scientific knowledge that you maybe start to understand.

4) All in all, it is a rather weak argument. Trying to reinterpret the bible to fit modern scientific knowledge is understandable, but it doesn´t make it any better.


1) I am not sure who you mean or what you are implying on this one. Can you link something?

2) Slavery in the Bible is no different than working men and women today. The only exception is that the slaves were set free every 7 years, debts were forgiven and land ownership was released. A 'slave' in Bible days willingly worked. In some cases, they were working off debt. In other cases, they were being punished for a crime. Today, we are all slaves and serfs to a system that keeps us perpetually in debt.

3) Scientific knowledge is only confirming what we already knew from the Bible.

4) In every case, the Bible holds the higher axiom. Science refuses to admit it and jumps through theoretical hoops trying to avoid the obvious: At the heart of the universe is consciousness. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has it correct. Consciousness creates and preexists matter, not the other way around. The universe is all energy and we are rendered as a hologram. The video below relies on current science and quotes from the mouths of scientists themselves. You cannot get it better from the horses mouth if you tried. Denying this is ignoring what we KNOW!




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


1) I am surprised that you´ve never heard of these believes, but here you go: en.wikipedia.org...

You will find a short history of the "young earth" theory. Although not every christian believes it, it is no secret that there are ultra religious christian groups that do/did. The question is where do we draw the line?

2) I see what kind of a point you´re trying to make. As slavery was a common business practice in the day, we would have to expect rulings for that in the bible. Plus you say that the modern employer/employee relationship is somewhat similar.

Well, I think you´re making it a little easy here. There are things written in the bible (the word of GOD!) that clearly allow you to kill or torture a slave, or that you can trade children. I do not think that his still applies to the modern work relationship.

If you need examples, here are just a few:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Oh, how about this little gem: " When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)"

How very christian, isn´t it?

You see what I mean? How can we ignore cruel texts like these? We either follow all the rules or we accept that not everything has relevance. There is no middleground here.

3) Yeah well you just have disqualified yourself for further discussion. I can´t talk with you on that level, you are clearly way too far gone.

But just one little thing. According to the bible women were made by sacrificing a part of adams body. I know it´s confusing because there are two stories out there.

But do you generally accept the christian viewpoint by which women are clearly inferior to men? Created as a partner for men, not on their own merits. Clearly thought to be of less use by the church as we can also read in the quotes I posted about slavery.

Do you accept that viewpoint?

Oh another point on the scientific front. I suspect the fossils records were created like adam and eve? To entertain us maybe?

Right.

4) I personally think that there has to be an intelligence responsible for our universe as well.

But why oh why does it have to be genesis? Can´t we have a god that is NOT christian? Hmm? What about the billions of people in china and india who aren´t christian btw? Are they all wrong? Is THEIR genisis not correct?

If a god created the universe, and as I said I believe that, why does it have to be the christian one?




Look here is what I know. There are unrefutable scientific facts that we have to incorporate in our theories. Carbon dating and fossil records are only a few of those points. The big bang AND evolution are others.

Does that mean that there is no god? OF course not! It just means that the bible is like EVERY other religious text on this planet. NOT to be taken as a literal historical document.

Trying to somehow fit the christian genisis into this scientific world by playing with definitions of days etc. is therefore a understandable but not very useful operation.

We could go on with several logical examples, but usually types like yourself aren´t really open to those.

So let´s just agree to disagree.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 


Oh, just one more thing. Even if your point number 4 is true, and the universe IS created by consciousness, how is that proof for genesis?

It is proof of a god, or at least an intelligence outside of this system, doesn´t really have to be a god.

What I do not understand is why does it have to be genesis, and not the buddhist or hindu creation story. Where is the difference?

I´m sure christians have many reasons why their religion is the best, I´m really interested in a few.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
The number 6 related to the creation does indirectly refer to the age of universe. It is basically a prophecy, which says that when Man would be able to to establish the age of the universe, number 6 kicks in in the form of this equation:

6 = x - y

There is obviously no unique solution, but with respect to the biblical text, the solution is

6 = 13 - 7

The proof is based on the current best estimate of the age of the universe:


The best available information indicates that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

hubblesite.org...=cosmology

The belief in God is sometimes characterized as a superstitious belief. Now enter the age of the universe in billion years; that is, 13.7. Does the integer and the fractional part of the number relate to a superstition?

It surely does. 13 and 7 are very common superstitious opposites: 13 is considered a very unlucky number, whereas 7 is the lucky one. Both numbers are therefore opposites, but when combined into a number reflecting upon the age of the universe, that is 13.7 billion years, is the functionality of the opposition preserved?

Of course it is. The universe is theorized to expand from a state called singularity. But how did the singularity form? That's where the logic of opposites kicks in:

13 is to (UNLUCKY and EXPANSION) as 7 is to (LUCKY and CONTRACTION)

Some cosmologists speculate that the singularity formed from a universe which existed before ours - a universe that collapsed upon itself due to gravitational influences.

It follows that Shroeder's conclusion omits the basic considerations and the assumption that God can think straight. God can also show that he can force and preserve numerical superstitions, such as the unlucky 13 and lucky 7, upon our mind whenever he pleases to, as he already did.







edit on 30-1-2013 by tremex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tremex
 

Sorry, try again. The current number (it will undoubtedly change as we observe more) is 13.77 plus or minus 0.059. (0.4% of variance)

If you insist on using "magic" numbers at least show integrity by using the actual numbers. Rounding away at closest 0.2 billion years is bad voodoo.

edit on 30-1-2013 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by tremex
 

Sorry, try again. The current number (it will undoubtedly change as we observe more) is 13.77 plus or minus 0.059. (0.4% of variance)

If you insist on using "magic" numbers at least show integrity by using the actual numbers. Rounding away at closest 0.2 billion years is bad voodoo.

There are more sources that put the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years. But according to data from the WMAP satellite, the universe is between 13.711 and 13.829 billion years old. Rounded to one decimal place, it is between 13.7 and 13.8 billion years old. The average 13.77 is as much as likely to be the "actual" age as 13.79, 13.8, 13.82 or any number in that open interval. So it makes only sense to pick 13.7, because it has a contextual meaning. So once again, remember that "actual" doesn't mean... well, the mean, as a measure of central tendency.
edit on 31-1-2013 by tremex because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join