Age of the World

[Vene]

As I have said before, Chalnoth, the only ones who claim they are being "deceived" are the ones who don't take the Documentation literally.

Which verse points to embedded age?

 

[pgp_protector]

As I have said before, Chalnoth, the only ones who claim they are being "deceived" are the ones who don't take the Documentation literally.

Why take it Literally ?
It's Inspired, not Dictated.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, actually, science, as we know it, completely excludes any possibility of the universe being 6,000 years old (barring the existence of a deceiver deity, of course). Now, what "problem" do you think there is here that science is not explaining?

We do not know how long 6000 years really is.

That is the problem.

 

[Danyc]

We do not know how long 6000 years really is.

That is the problem.

I would assume 6000 years is...well, 6000 years.

 

[FishFace]

Let me put it this way:

The science as we know it, is not good enough to answer this question.
The science as we know it is not good either even it were 13 billion years. Give longer time does not solve the problem.

"Science ... is not good enough?" Science answers the question by saying "It didn't happen that way."

And, given more time, it answers the question by saying, "It took X years for light to travel X light years from stars X light years away" - which is fine, since X, as far as we can tell, is always less than 13.7 billion.

 

[Chalnoth]

We do not know how long 6000 years really is.

That is the problem.

We don't know how long 6000 years really is? Are you listening to yourself? 6000 years is a unit of time. We know how long 6000 years is as surely as we know how long one second is.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't know how long 6000 years really is? Are you listening to yourself? 6000 years is a unit of time. We know how long 6000 years is as surely as we know how long one second is.

Oh, look around --- you'll see some who argue what a "day" is.

 

[Vene]

Oh, look around --- you'll see some who argue what a "day" is.

I will, because it depends on what planet you're on.

And I'm still waiting for the verse that backs up embedded age.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I will, because it depends on what planet you're on.

And I'm still waiting for the verse that backs up embedded age.

It's in 2 AV 8:24, 4 AV 9:1-4, 7 AV 8:19 and 12 AV 7:34-56.

 

[juvenissun]

We don't know how long 6000 years really is? Are you listening to yourself? 6000 years is a unit of time. We know how long 6000 years is as surely as we know how long one second is.

No, you know neither.

Tell me how long one second is. Why do we correct its value once every few years? You would need 10+ Ph.D.s to study that.

 

[Chalnoth]

No, you know neither.

Tell me how long one second is. Why do we correct its value once every few years? You would need 10+ Ph.D.s to study that.

Uh, no, we don't correct the value of the second. A second is defined as:
"the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

Why on Earth do you think we do correct the value of the second every few years?

 

[Open]

Guys Guys Guys………..
We are gone waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy off the main point of the thread here.
It is clear that one revolution of the earth makes a day and one orbit around the sun a year.
This however is immaterial when dealing with a measurable dimension as the speed of light which can be clearly defined, is measurable.
I am still waiting for an answer to this specific question. (see original thread).
Surely this is at least one Achilles heel of Young earth Theory!!!

 

[Valkhorn]

Go right ahead and say it; and I would challenge you to produce this book --- and it had better be a book that was written beyond conventional methods of publication and preservation.

Give me a few days in a cave and I can have your manifesto... er... I mean book.

But honestly, way to completely miss the point and not address what I said about the fact that none of what you claim is not testable nor is sticking god and miracles into things a good way of finding out how something works.

That's probably over your head anyhow but it was worth a shot.

 

[TheBear]

Give me a few days in a cave and I can have your manifesto... er... I mean book.

Don't forget to bring the shrooms. They help to enhance the inspirations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Guys Guys Guys………..
We are gone waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy off the main point of the thread here.
It is clear that one revolution of the earth makes a day and one orbit around the sun a year.
This however is immaterial when dealing with a measurable dimension as the speed of light which can be clearly defined, is measurable.
I am still waiting for an answer to this specific question. (see original thread).
Surely this is at least one Achilles heel of Young earth Theory!!!

Hi, Open --- nice to meet you ---

When God created the universe, He did it in the palm of His hand.

[bible]Isaiah 40:12[/bible]

This means that at one time, the universe was much, much closer together.

Following that --- He stretched the universe to its current dimension ---

[bible]Psalm 104:2[/bible]

Take a balloon, put dots on it, then blow the balloon up. Notice the dots are farther apart now?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Hi, Open --- nice to meet you ---

When God created the universe, He did it in the palm of His hand.

[bible]Isaiah 40:12[/bible]

This means that at one time, the universe was much, much closer together.

Following that --- He stretched the universe to its current dimension ---

[bible]Psalm 104:2[/bible]
Take a balloon, put dots on it, then blow the balloon up. Notice the dots are farther apart now?

Take a curtain. Hang it up. Stretch it out. Notice that it stays the same size from then on. It doesn't continue to expand.

 

[juvenissun]

Uh, no, we don't correct the value of the second. A second is defined as:
"the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

Why on Earth do you think we do correct the value of the second every few years?

OK, my mistake. I meant the correction of earth's rotation time.

But again, we think we understand time because we see time from the view of classical physics. And we know that understanding does not extend to the space. So, regards to the OP, we still do not understand how long the 6000 years really is. It could be, in fact, forever.

 

[flatworm]

But again, we think we understand time because we see time from the view of classical physics. And we know that understanding does not extend to the space. So, regards to the OP, we still do not understand how long the 6000 years really is. It could be, in fact, forever.

The 6000 years figure was arrived at by adding up the "begats' in the Bible, which of supposedly chronicles events happening on earth. Relativity doesn't rescue you here, I'm afraid.

 

[Open]

Hi ‘Defender of the Faith’.

I don’t think I’ll even bother replying to that one. Regrettably young earthers/creationists seem to have made up your mind that ‘God did it’ and will not tolerate any other view.

Unfortunately the creationist/young earth viewpoint never addresses scientific issues presented but tend to throw out a load of questions, ignore the replies and then claim victory, or just disappear in to the ether. (Just look at this section of the Fourms site).

This is frighteningly ignorant and undermines the credibility of such exponents. But I guess you just can’t reason with stupidity!!!

Nothing personal but at least the evolutionists provide evidence for their claims. And bundles of it.

 

[Open]

Hi ‘Defender of the Faith’.

I don’t think I’ll even bother replying to that one. Regrettably young earthers/creationists seem to have made up your mind that ‘God did it’ and will not tolerate any other view.

Unfortunately the creationist/young earth viewpoint never addresses scientific issues presented but tend to throw out a load of questions, ignore the replies and then claim victory, or just disappear in to the ether. (Just look at this section of the Fourms site).

This is frighteningly ignorant and undermines the credibility of such exponents. But I guess you just can’t reason with stupidity!!!

Nothing personal but at least the evolutionists provide evidence for their claims. And bundles of it.

PS Quoting the Bible is not what I woud call scientific evidence. Do you?