God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[gnostic]

hey Gnostic,
It's all about: from what is a photon made ?
Answer that and we can evolve further.
~
'mud

That's a good question, and I wish I could answer that.

I am still relatively new in the whole particle physics, quantum mechanics, general relativity, string theory. They are not something that I had studied back in my university's days.

I am more of dabbler in these more advanced physics fields, because I have always been fascinated by astronomy (though I have never formally study this - astronomy), and only in the last 4 or 5 years, in my own free time, I have been reading up on it, because learning anything about astronomy, will eventually lead one to needing to learn about cosmology. And learning about cosmology, will lead one to reading up on relativity, particle and quantum physics, etc.

In my time, at the universities, I have never study any of those fields, because I was essentially applied science type of guy, because of the courses (civil engineering and computer science) I had chosen to do. So I am more of an engineer than a scientist, and being an engineer, I only need to study the fields that were "needs-to-know"; so everything weren't included in my studies.

The closet thing I came close to studying photon in my college's days is in my electronics subjects, in my computer science course, where I have to study about light, more specifically - lasers - because they are used as form of data transmission in fibre optic networking. Here, I have to some understanding about light, optics and electromagnetism.

As I have said, I am more of practical (applied) physics, but it has only been very recent that I have venturing into the more theoretical side to physics. And though I am a dabbler, I am still learning.

And the only reason why I am reading up on photons, because to understand how the Big Bang cosmology make matters, I need to learn some of the basics in particle physics.

So for now, I still need to learn more, if I am to have a chance to answering your question about photons.

 

[`mud]

hey Gnosis,
"...needs-to-know...", is the most important of the needs.
The rest is all theoretical anyway, we'll never really get there anyway.
~
The 'soup' of the photon mystery is the 'gravity' of it all.
The Cosmos contains the 'bowl', and you all have the spoon,
slurp all you can, and swallow heartily, I'll not be here long enough.
~
'mud

 

[leibowde84]

I brought them to question. There are many, many indications in the data that the solar system is young.

Why do you want links here? Are you wholly unaware that most astronomers and astrophysicists date our Sun to billions of years old? It's simple--let's not overcomplicate it. There is evidence for a young solar system and Earth. There is evidence for an old solar system and Earth--we need as individuals to decide.

That's the thing, there is no verifiable, consistent evidence for a young solar system. On the other hand, there is a plethora of evidence for a solar system billions of years old.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I appreciate your perspective, though I'm still wondering why you are a member here rather than at a skeptics' forum.

Do you not comprehend the circular nature of standing at a modern observation point--recent science--than using current conditions and empirical observations to extrapolate backwards in time, while condemning anyone who disagrees with the rubric? This is actually the very challenge God gave Job in the scriptures, the haughty mindset of man who judges (what they assume) God has done, while not having been there in the first place to make an accurate observation!

I have no desire to get into all the individual pieces of your post that are fallible, so I will confine myself to a few remarks:

1. Have you considered how we can "see" homo sapiens remains are 200,000 years old when organics cannot be dated themselves back that far? Do you not understand the circular nature of saying, "this rock is nearby and this rock must be, what, um, 200K years old?"

2. What methodology was used to date the cave paintings, and why is it that pre-history entries in Wikipedia informs us that evidence of man's literary nature cannot be reasonably dated beyond circa 6,000 years? Don't historians realize the cave paintings have been "authentically dated" to a much older time by thousands of years?

3. Do you not understand the circular nature of saying, "We know from our rock dating assumptions that these dinosaur strata are 230 million years old, so the Earth has to be more than 6,000 years old..."?

Etc. Telling everyone more and more and more examples of problem-fraught dating examples doesn't strengthen your case, rather it shows you are relying on assumptions. Meanwhile, we have through archaeology an unprecedented amount of evidence for the claims of ancient cultures, not just including the Bible! Do you not give any credence to documents written by the people then? Of course you don't, because you ASSUME no scriptures can be true because they contain miracle claims.

You have assumptions about the Earth age and assumptions about the Bible. If you want to continue this debate, please admit you are making assumptions in many cases.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's the thing, there is no verifiable, consistent evidence for a young solar system. On the other hand, there is a plethora of evidence for a solar system billions of years old.

I appreciate your strong stance, however, I might recommend googling evidence for a young solar system in list form. I've been presented with dozens of scientific evidence points and etc. in the past. Pretty convincing stuff.

 

[fantome profane]

I appreciate your strong stance, however, I might recommend googling evidence for a young solar system in list form. I've been presented with dozens of scientific evidence points and etc. in the past. Pretty convincing stuff.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

 

[outhouse]

I might recommend googling evidence for a young solar system in list form. I've

None of those are credible.

 

[outhouse]

I've been presented with dozens of scientific evidence points

No you have not.

Or you would have posted them

 

[outhouse]

I appreciate your perspective, though I'm still wondering why you are a member here rather than at a skeptics' forum.

He has a passion for the truth.

Many do not.


His position is supported by all credible universities worldwide! he is not a skeptic, it is you who is the skeptic of academia

 

[outhouse]

1. Have you considered how we can "see" homo sapiens remains are 200,000 years old when organics cannot be dated themselves back that far?

Your factually false.

We date organics much further back, your trying to sneak in a fallacy by stating "dated themselves" just because of the limit of that dating method.

That does not mean we cannot date organics to much later dates.

 

[Ouroboros]

I appreciate your perspective, though I'm still wondering why you are a member here rather than at a skeptics' forum.

He's only talking about young earth creationism (6,000 year old earth), not religion in general or spirituality or even old earth creationism. This is a religious forum, which means many religious views, not just 6,000 year old earth creationist religion views. There are a lot of people who accept science while maintaining a religious and/or spiritual views. There doesn't have to be a conflict between them.

 

[outhouse]

Archaeologists in Jerusalem find city's oldest known settlement 7000 years old

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...wn-settlement/ar-BBpC2MK?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp


Israeli authorities announced Wednesday they had uncovered findings proving for the first time the existence of an established human settlement in Jerusalem as far back as 7,000 years ago.


So much for the idea the earth is 6000 years old that goes against facts and reason and logic.

 

[paarsurrey]

Archaeologists in Jerusalem find city's oldest known settlement 7000 years old
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...wn-settlement/ar-BBpC2MK?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp
Israeli authorities announced Wednesday they had uncovered findings proving for the first time the existence of an established human settlement in Jerusalem as far back as 7,000 years ago.
So much for the idea the earth is 6000 years old that goes against facts and reason and logic.

Quran does not mention that the earth is 6000 years old. So your contention that Quran copied from Bible/Torah proved baseless. Right?
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Quran does not mention that the earth is 6000 years old. So your contention that Quran copied from Bible/Torah proved baseless. Right?

I believe that outhouse was not replying to you, but to BilliardsBall.

The Qur'an don't provide much of time (ages, generations, reigns, etc). That probably because Muhammad is not good with number, and not because the Qur'an is accurate. If anything, I find the Qur'an is even less sophisticated or intelligent than any book in the bible, because it rely on one man's reciting imperfectly for others to write down.

That the Qur'an and Islam is popular today as it was back then, it was due to Muhammad's charisma as a leader than the Qur'an itself.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe that outhouse was not replying to you, but to BilliardsBall.
The Qur'an don't provide much of time (ages, generations, reigns, etc). That probably because Muhammad is not good with number, and not because the Qur'an is accurate. If anything, I find the Qur'an is even less sophisticated or intelligent than any book in the bible, because it rely on one man's reciting imperfectly for others to write down.
That the Qur'an and Islam is popular today as it was back then, it was due to Muhammad's charisma as a leader than the Qur'an itself.

And that is one's wrong opinion, like it had always been.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

And that is one's wrong opinion, like it had always been.
Regards

Think about it.

Only Muhammad claimed that he was a prophet, only he claimed that he was visited by Gabriel, and only he claimed that he received revelation (Qur'an) from God.

None of these claims can be tested or substantiated. You and others Muslims didn't have such revelations, so you are basing on one's man's words.

It is not God who created this religion, you called Islam, it was Muhammad. It is on Muhammad's words that people followed, even after his death, not God's. It was never God's revelation that you followed; it is words of Muhammad, and it is a crazy one. You may think the Qur'an is perfect and all, but I see it as the words of a petty and arrogant man, who cunningly use your own faith in manipulating you.

I still see nothing special about the Qur'an. It is even more poorly written and less coherent than the bible, that because the Qur'an and Islam are inventions of Muhammad.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Quran does not mention that the earth is 6000 years old. So your contention that Quran copied from Bible/Torah proved baseless. Right?
Regards

Neither does the Bible. The 6000 year old Earth idea is extrapolated from various unrelated factors; probably things like how long the various characters like Adam or Noah lived. Young Earth Creationists can't even agree that the world was created 6000 years ago. Their guesses vary from approximately 5,700 to 10,000 years ago - depending on how they interpret scripture.

 

[outhouse]

Only Muhammad claimed that he was a prophet

Tradition states Waraka made this claim.

The Christian heretic priest who taught muhammad his theology

 

[outhouse]

depending on how they interpret scripture.

Let me fix this

depending on how poorly they pervert the text

 

[BilliardsBall]

He has a passion for the truth.

Many do not.


His position is supported by all credible universities worldwide! he is not a skeptic, it is you who is the skeptic of academia

If I and religious persons like me are deluded, and you have a passion for the truth, why are YOU here? Clearly you do not have a passion for the truth.