I don't think any religion actually dates 'creation'
Imsc, the biblical age of the earth (6000yr?) was worked out using over 200 bits of information from various interpretations of the bible.
Recently, the "observable" universe was estimated at 13.5 billion years.
Whether or not a god snapped his fingers to kick-start the universe is irrelevant, we should spend our time to better understand what we can see as opposed to what we can't. That way, we can avoid such huge discrepancies.
Im not taking either side, but where in the Bible does it actually mention a date? It only 'refers' to historical events back to Babylon. If you consider the authors of the bible were only familiar to their world, they did'nt know about the history of cavemen etc. So they were unable to comment on these issues.
This is a friendly correction Cags.The Universe has been around about 13 billion years. I think its interesting to note the prediction that the world will end on Dec 21 of 2012 according to the Mayan calender when the Mayans believed the earth was created around 1300 BC.the Long count ends its first cycle on Dec 21 of 2012 period,no prediction of what happens next,could be the beginning of the next cycle,simple as that. What do you think bro?
I watched that program on TV ... I think that their calendar began around 3100 BC.which they believed was the beginning of their civilization. And that calendar will have completed six long count cycles in 2012. or something like that.
I understand my bible to say that in the beginning God created the earth..... And then on a first day God said "Let there be light". ... It does say how much time passes until the second day ... Scripture does not say that these were consecutive days as we understand a day to represent. There is much lost in translation and even more is lost when interpretation is applied to what is actually written.
I think that the scientific understand of the age of the earth does not contradict what scripture actually says about this issue. The earth is very very old. I believe that civilization has been wiped off of the earth on numerous occasions. Will that happen again? of course it will. When ? Nobody knows. Nature is unpredictable.
I agree with Jerami the world was created in six of Gods days... how long are those? - well you can ask Him when you see Him.
Until then the Genesis account is fine by me, allowing for the fact that God was dictating it to someone 4,000 years ago and they probably had a little problem understanding exactly HOW God did it... then again they'd probably have a hard time if you tried to explain how we are all sitting on opposite sides of the world communicating instantly...
According to the Hope Indians, the earth has been 'recreated' a few times.
I suppose I could buy that the Earth has been annihilated a few times through out it's short existence of about 15 million years leaving behind remnants of earlier inhabitants and other evolved species that somehow survived destruction of previous Earths.
I suppose that if history presents more evidence to support that Earth was decimated 6000 years ago and a new time map was formulated then in the Biblical sense... the Garden could have existed and the Genesis account could be plausible.
We do find facts to support a flood about that time however not exactly world wide so maybe, just maybe because I haven't completely ruled it out yet.
Maybe they should look for evidence that might suggest what state the continents were in. Because the theory of Pangaea suggest that the continents have moved apart and together at different times, it 'could' be possible that some sort of radical flood did happen by either tidal flood or some sort of water fall as it happened with the Grand Canyon.
Anyways, I don't know and I am not taking either side but merely suggesting that I have not ruled out a 'new earth' beginning about 6000 years ago which would be our age.
Not the age of humans but just our era or something I suppose.
And by new earth I don't mean that the planet itself was completely blown apart into a bunch of pieces and put back together again like Humpty Dumpty.
No. The gravitational attraction between any two masses (even single particles) is proportional to the product of the masses over the square of their separation. With single particles, the force is small, but as their mass is also small, the force is sufficient to accelerate them towards each other.
When you ask the age of this earth you must understand what is it we are asking.
Do you mean the time of existance age of this age, meaning coming into light in it's present state?
Then there is no reason to doubt the record of Moses. Which would give it a span of 6000 years give and take a few hundred.
But as to the age of the substance of things existing in this present age, is an impractical question.
For all things in present existance, came out from an eternal preexistance. And things eternal cannot be limited by the measurement of time.
For the earth preexisted in two forms, as pure light full of the knowledge of all goodness and order and invisible. And again in pure darkness, chaotic, totally ignorant of all good, dense hard and confine within itself and covered in water.
From these two this earth and present age came into existance. This can be clearly seen with the duality of ever the positive and negative in it.
Just as things exist in cycles within the age, just so this entire age will run through it's cycle and be no more, or more correctly return into it's former state of pure light and pure darkness.
You ask (for) too much. In a way I did change my faith. Well, no, not faith. You can't really change your faith.You can change what you believe, though. To answer the question briefly, I went from Roman Catholic, to "fundamentalist, evangelical, Bible believing, pentecostal, protestant Born Again Christian". Not MY tags, but that's what I've been labelled with before. Just not in one sentence.
I was being a bit cheeky. All you extrapolate from that would be that every day that passes brings you closer to the next (inevitable) one. I believe we living in the last days, so I find some parallels in the example above.
Six thousand years since Adam and his posterity. However, my faith accepts that the term "day" as used in the Creation can mean millenias. The reckoning of time prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve was very different compared to after the Fall or the process of time as we now live it. As far as the Earth is concerned it is not definitely known but as far as mankind since Adam around six thousand years.
Nope, in the face of forceful speculation, they didn't want to have another Galileo situation on their hands, so they bought into it. There is tons of proof that the earth is young, it's usually push under the rug to further promote evolutionism.
It's a conspiracy! And all the Christians I have known through my life who think that this is madness are simply dupes, and, despite their faith in Jesus, are bound for hell with the rest of us; tough break
Negative. The Church has never held that the term "day" as described in scriptural texts on Creation as being that of a 24 hour period. One must understand the writing language of the Old World in order to properly apply it to modern understanding. Writing in the Old World extensively used imagery and terms to represent what it was they were writing about. Revelation is packed with this kind of imagery and should not be taken literally as written with the characters but rather the imagery needs to be first understood in order to apply the truthfulness of the book.
This "compromise" as you put it may have taken place in some other faiths but has never faltered in mine. Keeping this thought open to further light and knowledge gives way to combine discoveries of modern science as well as modern revelation. Science and pure religion can work syonymous but one must remain open to new knowledge. Ultimate truth is an ongoing endeavor.
Nor has it held the term "day" to mean any other time period, so it is assumed to mean a 24 hour period.
Notice how your description of the bible as being vague and fictional precludes its claim to truthfulness.
Actually, it has taken place.
No, they can't work together as they are on opposite ends of the field.
The scientific method is a failsafe way of understanding how things work, and without this method, we would still be living in cave.
The religious method is to draw a conclusion; God did it. And, then go around trying to find evidence to support the conclusion, despite facts that put the conclusion in question. And, since nothing else gets done, the cave remains the residence.
Please - don't assume the doctrines of my faith. Since it's inception in 1820 no official statement has been given regarding the specific span of time of a "day". We have long held an eternal view of mankind and creation in general therefore no compromising has ever taken place in my particular faith. The common process of thought wants to find fractures between science and religion, however, if you expand your understanding of both you will find how they actually work together. I have not painted the Bible as vague but rather beautiful in the architecture of it's compilation. The truth and secret to it's understanding lies in the imagery that the words portray. It goes much deeper than our English language words.
Again, I speak only for the doctrines of my faith and no one elses. My beliefs are sound in conjunction with scientific discovery if one studies the possibilities of each.
Red Shift is just one factor in helping determine the expansion rate of the universe, and along with the black body temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the age can be relatively calculated with good precision.
Back to red shift for a moment. When light from distant objects travels through space for millions of years, it is affected by the expansion of the universe in that the frequency (energy) is "stretched out" along with the expansion. And, if the frequency of the light decreases, we observe it as moving towards the 'infra-red' region of the light spectrum. Calculations of this frequency compared with other objects can be turned into distance.
Pretty much, yes, we do. Remember, we're talking about the "observable" universe. If there are other areas of the universe that have not been observed, we can therefore assume it to be larger and older. No light has reached us from those regions so they will remain unknown at this time.
To state emphatically that the entire universe is 13.5 billion years old, as a fact, isn't good science.
The scientific community never forgets that fact.
You're free to do so. Many stick only to their beliefs.
When the facts change. I will re-evaluate what I believe to this point. Until then Science has a long way to go.
To say we are talking about the observable universe, simply makes my point. If there is more to the universe than we do not know it's true age. And if not then we still do not as of yet know the true and accurate age of the universe.
So your argument is moot.
And if you read my post I, I did not state emphatically with any ceretainty of any specific age. I stated,... "The age of the earth is 4.5 billion, our galaxy is 10 billion years, and the age of the universe is 11 +/- 1.6 billion years.
I have heard it said also that the universe is more on the side of 14.5 billion.
But? You know how it is when your guessing.
I don't think we really know how old it is."
Doesn't sound to specific to me.
Science tends to forget, what we don't know about things is infinintly more, than what we know.
Most likely, the facts won't change, that's why they're facts. Yes, science does have a long way to do, and we can do one of two things; admit to not knowing everything there is to know or invoking supernatural gods to explain it all away.
Hence, the reason why we say the "observable" universe.
So essentially, what you're claiming is that the facts will change because the observable universe is possibly not all of the universe. Well done.
"Correction, the "observable" universe." But we do believe there is alot more, so we don't know.
You can say well this and well that, and we know this and know that. But in the end,.... like right now, today,... we don't know.
unless your saying we know we don't know, but we know this much.
Then I agree.
We know some things, and of all them things, we can say some are fact,(And facts can change, a truth never changes.), Facts are a relative perception, and change with those perceptions.
A, "Truth", is just that, a truth. It does not change.
And, insulting my religious beliefs doesn't make you right. It just shows the arrogance I have expounded upon throughout my answers.
But in the end!
We "do not" know the age of the universe, and to say we do is another lie of science.
Let me ask you.
How do you conclude something? When you do not have all the facts with which to reach a valid and honest conclusion.
You said it yourself, the "observable universe", that leaves the major possibillity that we do not see all the universe. Which I do not believe we do. And science in my opinion does not think we see it all,... So?...
"So essentially, what you're claiming is that the facts will change because the observable universe is possibly not all of the universe. Well done."
I knew. If you read deep enough you would see it was simple. We cannot see it all, so saying we know for a fact is not truthful.
I believe that time is a creation of man and is therefore subjective. If you imagine it as a big box filled with water that is constantly liquid and God (or as I prefer - the creator) would be outside of time- watching us from a distance and revelling in his/her creation - that's if they even know we exist at all. I think we were created all at once - like the box of water was conjured into existence somehow...we just started, and one day we'll end. And the creator can see it all at once.
I've just been reading about 'out of place' artifacts. Oddities which are dated way, way way outside of the parameters of the currently accepted assumptions on human development on this planet. It appears a lot of these...
How Do You Explain The Age of The Universe?I understand religious people believe God made the world and everything in it and everything in the universe. According to the bible, the world is only several...
Do ya think this is possible?In less that 2 billion years the surface of our earth will boil as the suns fuel diminishes. Could the earth be moved to a greater distance from the sun in an effort to save it?
If the end of the world is inevitable, why not now?Whether it be war, disease, a meteorite, God, or something else we don't know about yet, I think we all believe someday, the Earth will cease to exist. Could be a...