jump to last post 1-33 of 33 discussions (79 posts)

Is the Earth 6000 or a few billion years old?

  1. Peter M. Lopez profile image91
    Peter M. Lopezposted 8 years ago

    I don't have the answer, obviously, but here is the short version of Dr. Gerald Schroeder's attempt to harmonize these seemingly contradictory ideas.

    http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

    There is an audio of a lecture somewhere which I will post if anyone is interested.  I think I have posted the audio on another thread.

    I have been contemplating this for a few months, but not too in depth (my math and physics is limited to a lay person's understanding), so I would be interested to hear your thoughts and ideas.  It is an interesting approach from someone who isn't a quack.

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Peter, yeah,
      It's an interesting point of view put in boring words. Sorry I was not able to read all the way through - but I think I grasped the idea, and I do think it has a merit. smile

      Sandy,
      No, it won't change anything - but what will? Aren't we just having conversations here for a sake of enjoying the good company?

  2. 0
    sandra rinckposted 8 years ago

    who cares??? Why do people really care?  It's an honest question, would it change anything? no, not really!  So it's as old as you want it to be.  smile

    1. 0
      ColdWarBabyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Some of us just can't stop asking questions about everything.  Knowledge is a great engine of change.  After all, wasn't it "knowledge" of good and evil that got us kicked out of paradise?  I'd say THAT changed a lot of things! (assuming it ever happened)

    2. scheinandras profile image60
      scheinandrasposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It could help us to understand how our world works. It would be a tiny piece of a giant hopeless puzzle. A puzzle what cannot be solved, but we won't give up:)

  3. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    This is old. I probably heard this 10 years ago.

    I honestly don't know what it proves.  Other than that the world is a lot older than 6,000 years as we measure years. I must admit my math is not good enough to pick holes in his version of events either.

    I know he came in for a lot of flack from the literal creationists when he first published his theories. There are some who will go to all sorts of lengths to try and prove their version is right. No matter how much proof is presented that they are wrong. A lot of them call this faith. I am not sure I can call it anything other than scary.

    What is your opinion of the literal creationists? big_smile

    1. Peter M. Lopez profile image91
      Peter M. Lopezposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry guys, I posted this and then was unable to get back for a day or so, my apologies.

      I happen to agree that the world is a lot older than 6000 years, and I have never changed my mind.  There are many young-earth creationists, I think WC is our resident young-earth creationist, and I was just offering this up as a possible bride.

      I agree, I don't think it proves anything, much like most everything else.  However, Schroeder is someone who I do have a great deal of respect for as both a scientist and Hebrew scholar.

      As for my opinion on literal creationists, I think I have expressed before that I do not believe the original Hebrew is nearly as restrictive as the English translations of the Genesis account of creation.  I do not believe the original Hebrew requires a literal 6 days interpretation.

      And no, Schroeder's idea is not "new" in the recent sense, but I don't think it gets enough play, so I was tossing it out there.

  4. 0
    Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago

    I pretty much stopped reading after the first paragraph when he said "The torah does not have the option of changing".  One can waste one's time and one can spend it.  I for one think it is a waste of my time to even continue reading something where the author of such a piece cannot be honest enough with himself to see that it is his interpretation of the Torah that is unchanging and not the text itself (which I am sure has been through even major revisions after all these years in existence).

    Btw Mark I just call it "trying to correct cognitive dissonance through rationalization".  They believe something dogmatically so the facts must fit into their understanding in order for their "faith" aka false peace to continue.

    There is no such thing as evidence with these people when it comes to evidence challenging their dearly held dogmatic ideas of the world and yes I agree, that is a little scary.

  5. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    I think you mix Torah and Old testament, Zarm. While similar, they are quite different. Torah is kept in the language it was written in, and Jews do their best to keep it unchanged for thousands of years - much like their customs and devotions.

    1. 0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps I am wrong then, perhaps it has not been through any major revision at all, however I still do not understand how forced esotercism is any different from selective interpretation (albeit a much longer held selective interpretation).

      I mean, a text, any text, can be looked at at least several ways and interpreted several ways.
      Who, or what is to say which is the right interpretation?  Rabbi's whose sacred task it is to pass on the tradition?  From whence does their authority emanate?  God? YHWH in the form of Yahweh? Or Elohim? 

      Even if somehow this book has not changed (and that I seriously doubt), an assumption of the validity of the authority of their particular "unchanging" interpretation is needed before you can even get to step two of that particular form of multiple out.

  6. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    I am not saying this interpretation is correct or the only TRUE one big_smile

    I find it interesting, though, and well worth friendly discussion smile

    As for validity of interpretations in general - I think ALL what we read or hear we necessarily interpret, everybody in his/her own unique way, and I don't see anything wrong with it, it is just how our brains work. smile

    1. 0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Haha touche !!

      Thx Misha for clarifying, at the end of this I will certainly know what other people believe about this topic.  It won't amount to anymore than that probably.  Nice to know we can all talk about it.

      This thing about everybody interpreting things in his/her own unique way, hmm sometimes I wonder if we all just have inherent blinders on and that people allowed to have their own preferences can pick a certain thing but it all amounts to viewing the same thing from different angles so to speak.

      Like some people prefer to sit on a ledge on the middle of the cliff after a good climb and get that view, others prefer to peek over the top while still others like to stand at the bottom and look up before they move on.

      I wonder if it could all just be that simple.

      If it was then people agreeing to disagree would ensure that everyone would live their lives without trying to convince anyone of anything that conflicted their worldview ever.

      Lol, I wonder if such a thing were possible if it truly would be the salvation of mankind.

  7. WeddingConsultant profile image81
    WeddingConsultantposted 8 years ago

    I'll add a few points of clarification for what they're worth:

    The Torah only contains the first five books of the Bible, Genesis-Deuteronomy.

    Also, YHWH, Yahweh and Elohim are all different names for the same God, the God of the Bible.  YHWH is the original spelling (since the Hebrew language didn't have vowels until much later) and Elohim is just another name for YHWH but it comes from "el."

    Maybe that clears a few things up...

    1. SweetiePie profile image84
      SweetiePieposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      You are correct Wedding Consultant  smile.  I just wanted to add Jehovah is another version of the name Yahweh.

      1. 0
        \Brenda Scullyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The vowels from elohim go into YHWH to make yehowih, and the present day interpretation as you say is Jehovah......

  8. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Well Zarm,

    The problem is - there are people who are tolerant (or they think they are tolerant) to other people's opinions. And then there are people who are not. They think they shouldn't tolerate this and that. This is their opinion.

    Now, people who are tolerant cannot tolerate those who are not, and always try to convince them that they should be tolerant wink

    I think I'm guilty in this, too...

    The only solution I see here is to change myself first smile

  9. Thom Carnes profile image60
    Thom Carnesposted 8 years ago

    Here's a different perspective: an overview of the *scientific* evidence for the age of the earth, written by a practising Christian:


    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens2002.pdf


    It's rather long and detailed - but, if nothing else, the Introduction and the Appendix (page 23) may be worth reading.

    1. Peter M. Lopez profile image91
      Peter M. Lopezposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Okay, I will need some more time than I have at the moment to read this, but I will and get back to you.  Give me the weekend, my friend.  Thanks.

      1. Thom Carnes profile image60
        Thom Carnesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Take your time, Peter, old chum.

        The fact of the matter is that there are lots of online presentations by practising Christians supporting the view (based on all the available evidence) that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.

        If someone could give me a reference to a similar presentation by a *non*-believer supporting the view that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old I *might* start to take it a bit more seriously.

        I think it was Richard Dawkins (who else?) who made the point that believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old is an error of the same order of magnitude as believing that the distance between New York and Seattle is seventeen and a half yards!

  10. Inspirepub profile image86
    Inspirepubposted 8 years ago

    Zaim,

    Have you read Becker's "Denial of Death"?

    It may help you to make peace with the craziness of human nature.

    Jenny

    1. 0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Jenny, it looks good and I may read it.

      It is interesting being in the physical prescence of another person, or more than one person, or a group of people.  That is hard enough as it is something I am not used to, but coming to understand why people do some of the crazy things they do is very very difficult.

      Matter of fact it is impossible to do fully, and why would I want to?  One cannot practice well what one does not understand.fully.  Seeing as how I don't want to inflict religion, cruelty, isolation, torture, manipulation, and violence on others then why would i want to fully understand such things?

      A good understanding will suffice, a full understanding would make me a participant somehow I fear.

      It was enough that others did such to me, I usually leave it there where it lies.


      This Becker seems a good source for understanding. 



      When illusion is ubiquitous madness is absent.  It is only when illusion is not present that madness truly takes it's hold.
      What was that about Nietzche and the horse that he tried to save from getting beat by it's cruel owner?

  11. BeatsMe profile image81
    BeatsMeposted 8 years ago

    I have other problems to worry about than thinking about how old earth is. smile

    1. rizrazi profile image61
      rizraziposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thats right

  12. 0
    sandra rinckposted 8 years ago

    The entire entity of what we are is crazy yet fascinating.  Humanity or life in general is the most fascinating creation, creation by God force or accidental occurance, neither one is more important than being. 

    God serves us, we don't serve God.  What would we give him that he doesn't already have?  My heart, my soul, my life? 

    Was Jesus God?  Nope, but God served Jesus.  smile

    1. Eng.M profile image75
      Eng.Mposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      in my opinion, God doesn't need us.

      God is just testing us.

      the question is: why is he testing us? does he have advantages out of this?
      why would he have advantages if he is perfect?



      Jesus was a human  used to eate, talk and do everything just like us.
      the only difference is that he was nearly perfect comparing to other humans.
      also, he was born in a miracle without a father.

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        The only difference is Jesus believed God would.

        1. Eng.M profile image75
          Eng.Mposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          would? would do anything?

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Jesus believed that God believed in him.  smile

            1. Eng.M profile image75
              Eng.Mposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              why does God have to believe in Jesus?

              Jesus had to believe in  God and he did as I know from different history resources.

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                of course Jesus believed in God.  I am talking about Jesus beleiving in himself, that God also believed in him.  smile

                1. Eng.M profile image75
                  Eng.Mposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  very confusing.
                  who is God and who is Jesus?

                  I know God who created everything and therefore we all must believe in him including Jesus who already did.

                  1. 0
                    sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    Exactly, so I was not frustrated with my friend, I was frustrated with whom ever decided to confuse the rest. 

                    smile

  13. 0
    Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago

    In my opinion this topic could have been named:

    "Is the earth 6000 or a few billion years old?  Rephrased:  Is the earth the Center of the universe or the Sun?"

    Challenging the notion of the age of the universe in this century, in this age, is fairly equivalent (in my honest opinion) to what people once did when they challenged the notion that the sun was the center of the universe because it was hard to accept.

    It's just that "foggy" shall I say.

    I would contend that the particular "fog" that people who truly believe the earth is 6,000 years old are in, has been around in one form or another for 6,000 years at least, and hopefully not 6,000 more.

    smile

    It is what it is.

    Too bad we don't have the fountain of youth yet.

  14. secondsamuel profile image60
    secondsamuelposted 8 years ago

    I am inclined to think that no one truly knows how old the earth is, save the Creator. Science is not a perfect science. Why do we play with numbers that we can't even comprehend;  and what difference does it make anyway? Another declaration I would like to make today is that I have been converted and now I believe in evolution (my own theory)......I believe that God created man and set him in the garden and then man evolved into what he is today and is still evolving.

  15. Lady Guinevere profile image61
    Lady Guinevereposted 7 years ago

    This was started some 13 months ago.  As time has gone by since then and new discoveries have been made, what is the consensus today?  Anything worth sharing now?

  16. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    I think the earth is at least 4 Million years old.

    1. Lady Guinevere profile image61
      Lady Guinevereposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think it is much older than we can ever get to thinkiing and so much older than what the Bible says.  Carbon dating has it's limits too and some speculation has occured with some timing dates on fossils and such.  New information flows to us in a wide range of areas and almost on a daily basis.  What are we going to dicover tomorrow that will change our minds and perspectives.  I love watching the History Channel and the Science Channels becaseu they bring lots of things that we are discovering out into the open.  There is a program on The Science Channel that is very good at bringing into the public eyes all the new inventions.  I just wish they would put some of them on the nightly news in a segment by itself.  I think it is called "Beyond Tomorrow".  There is all kinds of neat stuff on there that should be shared.

  17. Make  Money profile image72
    Make Moneyposted 7 years ago

    6,000 years old give or take a couple. smile

    Who cares?  It's just something else to argue about.  Have fun with your argument.

    1. Lady Guinevere profile image61
      Lady Guinevereposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Mike, I did not start the thread.  Just maybe you should read the OP and who wrote it.
      On your defensive for something that I said about the way that *I* feel.  I didn't say anything about how you felt as in negativity.  Tis you doing this not I.  Be happy!  Good grief Man!

  18. dipless profile image84
    diplessposted 7 years ago

    The Solar system we live in by many measures is in the region of 4.55 billion years old. However the oldest rocks to be dated on the Earth are in the region of 3.8 - 3.9 billion years old these are very rare on Earth but there are many rocks from around 3.5 billion years ago. So the Earth is at least 3.9 Billion years old.

    However what you also need to take into consideration is when the Earth was formed and it accreated a lot of matter and had a very high radioactive output the temprature on Earth would have kept the Earth molton for a long time.

  19. spiderpam profile image58
    spiderpamposted 7 years ago

    I really don't how old earth is, but I do know who created earth and  I can't put him in a box of what I think time is.
    I wouldn't trust carbon dating, it's been proven to be flawed.
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 45,00.html

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Deary me - I should stick to telling people what not to do if I were you. Please explain how carbon dating is flawed to the point that it is no longer a useful tool for dating things rather than needing to be re calibrated to take into account new information we have learned..

      This might help you understand better:

      "A group of limestone stalagmites from a submerged cave beneath the Bahamas has thrown doubt on conclusions about human history drawn from carbon dating. The scientists who found it say that there are also important implications for climate change.

      The formations, recovered from a cavern which was created when sea levels were about 100m (330ft) lower than today, showed that more than 20,000 years ago there were dramatic shifts in the amount of radioactive carbon – often known as "carbon-14" – in the atmosphere.

      Because the ratio of carbon-14 to its stable cousin, carbon-12, is used as the basis of carbon dating of fossils, any widespread variation in that balance would confuse the dating of items such as plants or animals which existed around those times.

      "It means we have tended to underestimate the true age of objects from 20,000 to 40,000 years ago by up to 8,000 years," said Dr David Richards, of the School of Geographical Sciences at the University of Bristol. However, he added, "this may change the timings, but it won't change the order of events."

      Carbon-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere by high-energy particles striking nitrogen atoms. These are dispersed through the atmosphere and taken up by living objects. The ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in fossils indicates how long ago the organism lived.

      The stalagmites, from the Blue Caves beneath the Bahamas, were formed about 45,000 years ago. Scientists from the universities of Bristol, Arizona and Minnesota found that there were peaks in radiocarbon levels which could not be explained by any increase in atmospheric radiation. Instead, they think that the take-up of carbon in the planet changed – possibly by a fall in the amount of carbon dioxide (which would contain radiocarbon) dissolved in water.

      Carbon dating is known to be unreliable for objects which are more than 16,000 years old; the new discovery suggests that some ancient items may be several thousand years out.

      "It might solve some mysteries," suggested Dr Chris Stringer, an anthropologist at the Natural History Museum. "For example, based on radiocarbon dating, the modern humans in Europe seem to vanish for about 5,000 years from many parts of the continent between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. Well, it might turn out that they didn't vanish at all when we recalibrate."

      However it would not change the dating of items such as the Turin Shroud, which was made within the past 1,000 years.
      http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ncarbon.htm

      Which does not mean is has been proven to be flawed. Good grief big_smile

      1. Lady Guinevere profile image61
        Lady Guinevereposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the article Mark.  Misinformation is corrected yet again!

      2. spiderpam profile image58
        spiderpamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Good morning  Knowles, how are you today? I hope well. You put so much "faith" in man and science, but if you asked any man the color is the sky they'll say blue, but that not right is it.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Good afternoon I am fine thank you. I hope you are also well. Sorry you did not like me teaching you something new.

          And I am not really sure what our word for our perception of the color of the sky has to do with anything. I put no such "faith" in anything - although - I have to ask - now that you know that carbon dating is not "flawed" - do you accept the earth is billions of years old?

          1. spiderpam profile image58
            spiderpamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I said earlier I'm not sure how old earth is, but I do know who created earth and I can't put him in a box of what I think time is. It could be thousands to millions to trillions man will never know for sure, all they can really do is guessimate(not real word I know, but I like it). You can teach me all you want, but(no offense intented) there is simply nothing I wish to learn from you.smile

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That much is clear. Too bad - you never know what you might be missing out on. Like learning that carbon dating is not to be discarded.

  20. dipless profile image84
    diplessposted 7 years ago

    There's carbon dating which as Mark correctly put is not flawed but sometimes needs to be recalibrated due to new facts coming to light... but there are other factors including but not exclusive to

    Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere
    Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
    Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon

    Also you ask Mark "You put so much "faith" in man and science"

    Why do you put so much "faith" in god?

    Just means we have different interpretations on life and nature!

    Also the sky IS blue, because the scattering of the suns light by the ozone only leaves the visable light with the wavelength of blue light left which is what our eyes sees! So by your definition black isn't black and the page i am looking at in my book isn't white. please explain your reasoning spiderham?

    1. spiderpam profile image58
      spiderpamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If you are looking for an arguement with name-calling please look elsewhere, I'm not the one, happy hubbing! smile

      1. Lady Guinevere profile image61
        Lady Guinevereposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Where the *bleep* did she call you names?  I think you don't understand and don't want to either.

        1. spiderpam profile image58
          spiderpamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          LG, it's spiderpam not "spiderham", how did you miss that?
          I 'll say it again I'm not sure how old earth is, but I do know who created earth and I can't put him in a box of what I think time is. It could be thousands to millions to trillions man will never know for sure, all they can really do is guessimate(not real word I know, but I like it). I'll never prentend like I know everything.

          1. Lady Guinevere profile image61
            Lady Guinevereposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It could have been a typo.  Get over it!  Too many people on here that are picky.
            You may say what you said a million times but it has nothing to do with the subject of how old earth is.

            1. spiderpam profile image58
              spiderpamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Ok LG, have a great Monday.smile

  21. dipless profile image84
    diplessposted 7 years ago

    Sorry I do appologize it was a typo i was away from comp and just got back to read this... sorry again but the content of my thread still stands, I don't like to argue but i do like to debate. Have a good day too smile

  22. dipless profile image84
    diplessposted 7 years ago

    I also have to totally agree with LG the question was is the Earth 6000 or a few billion years old?

    It wasn't a religious question or how was Earth created so your statement "I do know who created earth and I can't put him in a box of what I think time is." is null and void.

  23. Colebabie profile image60
    Colebabieposted 7 years ago

    According to my notes from a class I'm taking:

    Universe ~13.6 billion years old
    Earth ~ 4.5 billion years old
    Life ~ 3.8 billion years old
    Plants ~500 million years old

    So billions.

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ??? life came before plants?

      1. Colebabie profile image60
        Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, not human life, but life in general. Like bacteria.

  24. dipless profile image84
    diplessposted 7 years ago

    yeah single celled prokaryotes came about 3.8 billion years ago.

  25. rizrazi profile image61
    rizraziposted 7 years ago

    Allah knows better
    But its' told to us in Qur'an that the Entire Universe was made in 6 days and 6 nights

    1. Lady Guinevere profile image61
      Lady Guinevereposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What consitutes a day or a night?  It cannot be the day or knights they we have becaseu some are in the night and some are in the day on this earth.  As day may be just one of our lifetimes when night is when we go from this body and day when we ae in ths body...or the opposite.  It could also be many other things.

      1. Lady Guinevere profile image61
        Lady Guinevereposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I forgot to add that the northern part of Alaska has 6 months of night and 6 months of day.  I would surmize that the Ant-Artica would have the same.

    2. 61
      Blackngoldbananaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Gee...where have I heard that before?  Does Allah know what plagiarism means?

  26. fierycj profile image85
    fierycjposted 7 years ago

    I've not read through the responses yet, but in answer to the thread question. Our planet is billions of years old. Billions upon billions. But the Earth as an organized system is merely thousands of years. Yeah, like 6000, give or more years. A lot of christians and religious people who like to disqualify evolution outrightly might not be taking the wise viewpoint. Fossils have been discovered, DNA mappings, tons of evidence to support a pre-Adamic era where creatures existed. I say that world was so chaotic, full of creatures, monsters like the Leviathan, Ziz, Behemoth,as well as dinasaurs,dragons, etc. In the myth about Titanomachy or Giganomachy - whichever you prefer, we find that a war came about which brought about a partial destruction of the then world, as well as a partial elimination of such creatures. I've studied this endlessly, and I've deemed it safe to make the conclusion that the rebellion era of Lucifer, where the Devil and a third of the fallen angels battle Michael and the host of heaven is tied to this war, or rather the Bible's version of the Norse myth. This war rendered these creatures nonexistent or extinct. And left the world without form and void. This formlessness here is where we find that Genesis 1 begins with.

    1. Colebabie profile image60
      Colebabieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Earth as an organized system? What do you mean? Like able to support life? Fossils only 6000 years old? They are way older than that.

      1. fierycj profile image85
        fierycjposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You apparently didnt read my comment well. I said creatures billions of years old. Fossils billions of years old. Creatures eliminated through war. Left fossils behind. World in chaos for billions of years. Till 6,000 years back or there about when it was recreated.

  27. 61
    danny heimposted 7 years ago

    the earth is a few billion years old, at least, it is estimated by science to be 4.5 billion years old, thanks for asking

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't know there was an entity called "Science".

  28. Pete Maida profile image59
    Pete Maidaposted 7 years ago

    I'm not sure of the age of the earth.  All of my understanding makes me believe it is a lot older than 6000 years.  I do know that the universe is a lot older than that.
    Hubble can focus on light sources and see that they are spiral galaxies that look no bigger than a period typed on this page.  The smallest spiral galaxies are thousands of light years across.  For something that big to seem that small it would have to be well over ten thousand light years away.  Hubble has actually measured distances up to 700 million light years away, but let's assume you do not believe the calculations.  Simple logic tells you that for something that big can appear that small it must be ten thousands of light years away.  Which means the galaxy must be at least tens of thousands of years old if you believe in the speed of light.

    1. Inspirepub profile image86
      Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, no, Pete, you have to realise that God CREATED that light six thousand light years away so it LOOKED like it had been travelling 10,000 years to get here.

      He's all-powerful, remember? wink

      Jenny

  29. Pete Maida profile image59
    Pete Maidaposted 7 years ago

    Why would God have to pull off such a trick?  Why would God want to purposely mislead us?  That doesn't make any sense.  Would God want some people to be confused?  As I said the measurements really indicate light being received varies ine age from 4.3 years from Alpha Centauri to 700 million years from the most distant galaxies.  I know God can create this illusion with a thought but it couldn't be considered much more than a dirty trick if he did.

    1. Inspirepub profile image86
      Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Of course God is purposely misleading us - he is testing our faith. Why else would he allow Lucifer to work his mischief when, as an all-powerful deity, God could immobilise him with the flick of His mighty finger?

      God doesn't WANT people to be confused, but he sets up situations in which they MIGHT become confused, and therefore need to exercise their free will in order to retain their faith. By that exercise of free will, they earn their place in Heaven.

      If there were no tests of faith, there would be no need for Judgement Day, would there? We would all just be in Heaven automatically. What's the point of that? wink

      Jenny

      1. 61
        Blackngoldbananaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, why would he want ALL of his children to get to heaven automatically...I mean, how much fun would that be?  Its MUCH better to be able to cow your loved ones into doing what you want, isn't it?...let me put it to you this way....I have two children, if I left one outside to freeze to death because she didn't do exactly what I asked, (or in other words, practiced free will) I would be arrested.  Then people wonder why so many people turn their backs on "God."

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          With the flick of his mighty finger he could also end the suffering of little children, but doesn't. Could that be because the whole concept of an omnipotent god is a lot of buldust?

  30. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    Well, I think most people forget about the multi-dimensionality of life. Sure there is proof of  dinosaurs and humans on the earth from various points in this dimensional time. But I believe a lot of what is talked about in Holy Books and ancient stories, etc... is indicative of other dimensions of life, is relayed in written and story form to inform us of what we perceive as history, but what we could more rightly perceive has our potential.
    If its bad stuff that has been relayed, what are the lessons that we should learn from that history so as not to recreate it. And if its good stuff, we should take a cue from it to create better for ourselves now and for our future.
    The whole time and space thing is relative to our consciousness, actually created by our state of consciousness. big_smile

  31. 69
    Hell N0posted 7 years ago

    That would be the silly gap theory.

  32. yoshi97 profile image86
    yoshi97posted 7 years ago

    Okay, so let's role with the fact that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. After all, the oldest tree you can count the rings on is younger than that, as is the oldest living coral reef. Not to mention, the Hindu calendar goes back to 3102 BC.

    And why do I mention the Hindu calendar? Many in the non-scientific world mistrust carbon dating. As such, they only believe the recordings of man. Of course, these recordings could have occurred at any time, which means only those directly referenced in time have any real meaning ... thus ancient calendars provide a definite reference in time and we know that our history must then go back at least that far.

    Looks good for the 6,000 year theory, eh? Not so fast ...

    We have dinosaur bones littering the Earth and bones of ancient man. Of course, we threw away carbon dating for this discussion as many do not accept its validity, so we will continue on pure logic - as none of us were there to really know.

    First off, we know there were earlier versions of man as they are in the fossil record. As these other versions of man are never discussed in any writings, we do know for a fact they did not co-exist with moder man - or else they would have wrote about them once they discovered how to write. That pushes man back at least another 1,000 years - say back to the year 4,000 - and the Earth goes with it.

    We also have dinosaurs that are never mentioned and yet we still find remains of these behomeths. Something that large would never go undiscussed in ancient times, and yet, we never see anything written of their existence. Of course, we can say they lived beside ancient man 4000 years ago and disappeared as man evolved. It still fits - if forced to do so.

    Which brings us to another issue ... cave paintings ... Early man painted on walls the things he saw in his world - we've all seen the paintings. We know these paintings came before writings, as man added writings to his paintings as writing developed as a skill. Even then, mankind wanted to explain everything around him.

    As such, he would have drawn the dinosaurs he shared the land with, but we already determined he couldn't have, as these dinosaurs existed first ... which provides the paradox religion refuses to see.

    According to scripture man came first and all beasts followed. There is never mention of any dinosaurs predating man, so mankind must have lives with dinosaurs, or the scripture is in error.

    If mankind lived beside dinosaurs it was a great secret, as no human ever recorded record of these beasts in ancient times - no paintings, no writings, nothing. However, they went on to write of elephants, lions, sheep, and other creatures we are aware of in modern times. Why would they not write of something so large and how did they settle villages and towns with these large beasties on the loose?

    Well, obviously they skilled off the beasts, allowing civilization to flourish. Makes sense, right? Again, the answer is no, as such a glorious campaign against the huge beasts would have been recorded somewhere by ancient man. Look at all the ancient writings found around the world glorifying great hunts and battles ... mankind would not have missed making account of this one, now would they?

    Again, a hesitance ... perhaps they did forget the most important battle in their lives ... the fight for survival. After all, we didn't start out with recorded history. How would others that come later hear of these things?

    The same way they heard of the original creation of man ... by word of mouth, and I should think the defeat of the dinosaurs would be seen as enough of a valiant struggle to be passed on for thousands of years ... as early humans would have seen them as a plague from God and would have attested their victory as God's grace in giving them the lands as their own.

    Religion refuses to find a logical place for the existence of the dinosaurs. They snub the bones and never offer any explanation that I have ever heard. And yet, they are the first to take offense when others refuse to believe in something they can not see, hear, feel, or touch.

    Dinosaurs have real substance, and ignoring them will not make the Earth any younger or the pieces all fall neatly into place.

  33. 69
    Hell N0posted 7 years ago

    Read my hub about the great tan-neen.  There, you may learn about something very important created on day 5.

 
working