• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

Do you believe God possibly recreated the Earth 6,000 years ago?

  • Yes, it's possible that God recreated the Earth 6,000 years ago.

    Votes: 13 11.6%
  • No, there is no way that the Earth could have been recreated 6,000 years ago.

    Votes: 99 88.4%

  • Total voters
    112

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Time may be relative, and I do understand relativity, but it is not that RELATIVE where you can squash 13.7 billion years (observable universe) or 4.6 billion years (Earth) into 6000 years.

Light speed is still a constant, and it has taken 13.7 billion years for the light to reach us.

Although science doesn't know everything, and but what we do know now is because we have the current technology that help us find the evidences.

What you are doing is making baseless claims on the young earth. Baseless because they are based on make-believe and wishes and on how you can spin misinformation to twist science to suit your agenda; they are not based on evidence, and definitely not on science.

I don't expect you to have evidences, but at the very least you could do is provide sources from real scientists and real verifiable researches or discoveries.

Allow me to explain, and allow yourself the chance to listen and learn (not saying that to patronize you). Learn about relativity.

If Earth is near the center of the universe, and 6,000 OR SO years passed since creation, relativity informs us that certainly the furthest points had 13.7 Billion years to reach us with their light! Of course! Old universe, young Earth. There are several nice books on this very subject.

And before I get accused of being "Earth-centric", understand:

1. Earth and Earth's people are really important to Jesus Christ.

2. Telescopes and technology see the same depth of universe in all "directions" from Earth, literally looking "up" from anywhere on Earth and with gravitational light-bending et al.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Yes, you are right.

Billiardsball seemed to want to use Relativity (like time dilation) on non-moving objects.

Relativity is only truly applied in with point of references to astronomical objects (such as the space, galaxies, stars, and even spacecraft) moving away or towards the observer.

Measuring the age of objects on Earth, whether they be rocks, artifacts, fossils or an excavated sites, you would use time dilation because none of them are moving towards or away from anyone. Time dilation required moving object, because velocity is essential in calculating the time dilation of gravitational masses (or objects). So like you've said, time dilation cannot apply to measuring the age of rock on Earth. You wouldn't use time dilation for radiometric dating method.

I think literalist creationists tends to overthink or over-play their hand, when attempting to mix physics with religion. It required a great deal of mental contortions to completely different approaches into one, but doing so, will take both of them out of context.

Sorry, but the furthest points we can see out there are moving at FASTER and faster rates away from us. Time dilation absolutely applies to objects in motion!
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Earth and Earth's people are really important to Jesus Christ.

That dude died 2000 years ago.

And only mythology and theology states he exist today in some supernatural state

Created in a time when son of god was the emperor, a mortal man who also died and stayed that way.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Physics does not deal with how the Universe was "created by God". God cannot be involved in the scientific process because God cannot be measured or predicted based on observation.
You are simply wrong.
Whatever is done in scientific research is about the natural objects, the truth found relates to the creation done by G-d. Science does not deal beyond the observable nature. Does it?
Regards
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
You are simply wrong.

Oh, okay. :rolleyes:

Whatever is done in scientific research is about the natural objects

Right so far...

the truth found relates to the creation done by G-d.

You are simply wrong. God does not factor in to science because he cannot be observed, or reasonably extrapolated based on observations.

Science does not deal beyond the observable nature. Does it?
Regards

Actually theories uses current observations to extrapolate what might be observed in future. As an example: After the planet Uranus was discovered, astronomers noticed that it was 'wobbling' as it orbited our sun. The only thing that could be doing this would be the presence of an as yet undiscovered planet that lay beyond Uranus' orbit. That planet would later be discovered and named Neptune.
A more recent example would be Einstein's prediction about ripples in space-time being proven to be accurate a century after he made them.
 

outhouse

Atheistically

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
God does not factor in to science because he cannot be observed, or reasonably extrapolated based on observations.
I did not say that G-d was observable by science. Yet, the experiments are done on the objects created by Him. So the result reflects and provides knowledge in the things created.
Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
There is nothing anywhere at anytime that has EVER been attributed to any deity with any amount of credibility.
It is beyond science and history to meddle in the domain of religion, it is reasonably understandable. If they do it, they would lose their credibility. Science and History are dumb here.
Regards
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Sorry, but the furthest points we can see out there are moving at FASTER and faster rates away from us. Time dilation absolutely applies to objects in motion!

I am not talking about the universe here. I am talking about the Young Earth of 6000 years have been refuted, by what we can measure here on earth. And what we measure on earth, show that humans have been around lot longer than 6000 years or 4000 BCE. Time dilation is not involved when we measure anything on earth.

The whole young earth creationism is refuted, and nothing more than pseudoscience craps.

My point was that time dilation is not involved in radiometric dating methods, where scientists want to measure the age of sites built by man, or the age of man-made artefacts, or the age of fossilised animals, humans or plants, or the age of rocks, minerals or strata of rock and soils, etc.

Depending on which dating methods being used, they can measure anything from a couple centuries old to millions or billions years old.

The fact that one of the oldest parts of Jericho being older than 6000 years, show that man exist before the estimated age of biblical creation. The fact that the oldest fortification around the modestly populated town like Jericho was built around 9000 BCE, tell us that the Neolithic man have been around lot longer than 6000 years or 4000 BCE.

Whether we measure something that 6000 years old or 11,000 years old, it doesn't involve anything about time dilation.

You are the one who keep bringing up the young earth, but science know from discoveries of human (Homo sapiens) remains are as 200,000 years, clearly debunk the Young Earth myth.

The oldest modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens) in Europe, showed they have been around 37,000 years ago. The famous cave painting in Chauvet Cave in France, the oldest painting have been dated to 35,000 years ago. There are younger painting, dating to about 30,000 years, tell us that humans have been using this cave for several thousands of years.

The Chauvet cave painting debunk your claim of the Young Earth myth.

And are you forgetting the dinosaurs. If the Young Earth is true, then we wouldn't be finding evidences of dinosaurs that flourished from 230 million to 65 million years ago.

When it come to earth history, the bible creation story and the whole Young Earth myth are nothing more than make-believe wishful-thinking. The fact that we keep finding everything else that predated your Young Earth pseudoscience, clearly demonstrated you cannot offer anything other than irrational circular reasoning.

The earth may be younger than the universe, but the fact that we can find the some of oldest minerals and rocks that's about 45 billion years old, tell us that the earth is not that young at all.

You are doing your religion a disfavour when attempt to twist both the bible and science to this silly Young Earth myth. Your dishonesty have been noted by everyone else here.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You are simply wrong.
Whatever is done in scientific research is about the natural objects, the truth found relates to the creation done by G-d. Science does not deal beyond the observable nature. Does it?
It is beyond science and history to meddle in the domain of religion, it is reasonably understandable. If they do it, they would lose their credibility. Science and History are dumb here.
There are no evidences for God. And there are no evidences that God created anything.

God is nothing more than your silly and delusional superstitious belief. That you continue to believe in such primitive myth, demonstrate that you don't know anything about history or about science.

You stated yourself that your average person and an ordinary common of the street, without experience in scholarship in history and with limited understanding of science. If that's true, then how can you possibly tell us we are wrong about science or history.

If don't have the knowledge or experience in history or science then you shouldn't be telling anyone what's right or wrong, when you don't know yourself.

Why are you kidding us, pretending to know more than people who do have the education that you lack?

That because you cannot be honest with us or with yourself. The only one dumb around here, is the one who is claiming that science and history are dumb.
 
Last edited:

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
I did not say that G-d was observable by science. Yet, the experiments are done on the objects created by Him. So the result reflects and provides knowledge in the things created.
Regards

You're pre-supposing God's narrative with no evidence and thus no scientific basis. You are then attempting to impose a false narrative onto science and what it does. Science does not deal with the existence of deity and will not until it can be quantified, measured etc.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I did not say that G-d was observable by science.

If you didn't understand science before, you are certainly not going to understand it now.

You heard of the saying - being "stubbornly ignorant", you are personification of this.

Why do you keep making a fool of yourself?

You admitted previously that you have no science education, so how can you possibly know better than scientists about the natural world? You don't.

Science is ALL ABOUT THE OBSERVABLE, THE TESTABLE, THE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCES.

Do you understand?

Science explain what is observable.

Your God is not observable. There are no evidences for the existence of God. Therefore God CANNOT BE EXPLAINED. And if there are no evidences, then he doesn't exist.

What you believe in, is nothing more than make-believe, wishful thinking, and if you are a fanatic and fundamentalist, then you are delusional.

But you can believe all you want, that's your choice...BUT don't tell us what is science and what isn't science, especially when you don't have any science education. What you are doing is nothing but is hypocrisy.

You are like a man born blind, trying to teach everyone what colors are, when you haven't seen colors. Don't tell us what you know about science, because you don't know. And it is absurd and downright disturbing that you are trying so hard.

The problem is science is beyond your understanding, and yet you meddle with it, only to make yourself appearing more ignorant to everyone who bother to read your posts.

If you were intelligent, you wouldn't try to teach others what you don't know. If you were at all smart, you would ask question and you may learn something when someone take the time to explain something to you.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
If Earth is near the center of the universe, and 6,000 OR SO years passed since creation, relativity informs us that certainly the furthest points had 13.7 Billion years to reach us with their light! Of course! Old universe, young Earth. There are several nice books on this very subject.

Earth is not at the center of the Universe. There is not such a thing as the center of the Universe. And is there is, all points of it are at the center,

1. Earth and Earth's people are really important to Jesus Christ.

Oh, yeah. How could have scientists missed that? Of course the earth is at the center of the Universe. Because of Jesus.

2. Telescopes and technology see the same depth of universe in all "directions" from Earth, literally looking "up" from anywhere on Earth and with gravitational light-bending et al.

Can you expand on this? :)

Ciao

- viole
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Before direction and dimension,
there was nothingness, so says a theory.
hey BB, What is 'up' ?
I'll quote something from an old friend:
"In nothingness dwells the massless void
There be the darkness of the void:
There be not motion, thence not direction
There be not direction, thence not dimension
There be not dimension, thence not time
There be not time, thence none passeth
There be not time passeth, thence infinity be finite"
Nik
I repeat: What is 'up' ?
~
'mud
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
I did not say that G-d was observable by science. Yet, the experiments are done on the objects created by Him. So the result reflects and provides knowledge in the things created.
Regards
You're pre-supposing God's narrative with no evidence and thus no scientific basis. You are then attempting to impose a false narrative onto science and what it does. Science does not deal with the existence of deity and will not until it can be quantified, measured etc.
Unless and until the Atheists and the like give evidence that "G-d does not exist" nobody with wisdom would deny existence of G-d.
Science does not deal in this subject, so if some people believe out of blind faith in science that it could deal with it, they are wrong. Science is not ready to lift this burden of the Atheists which is understandable from the fact that they (the science) have not yet fixed a discipline for it. If there is such a discipline please let us know. Will one, please?
Regards
 
Top