The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes

[DarkSun]

Scientists have shown that the moon is moving away at a tiny, although
measurable distance from the earth every year. If you do the math, you
can calculate that 85 million years ago the moon was orbiting the
earth at a distance of about 35 feet.
This would explain the death of the dinosaurs...
the tallest ones, anyway.

How old is the earth?

<_<

Did the moon happen to be beneath it's crust at one point?

=P

 

[FFH]

Thank you Painted Wolf for inadvertently reinforcing my position.

Introducing the worlds oldest living organism (so far)!

This otherwise unimpressive 13 ft tall Norway Spruce (yup its a christmass tree) is a remarkable 9,550 years old. Making it almost twice the age of the oldest Bristle cones of California.
Ironically it was found in Sweden not Norway.

Oldest Living Tree Found in Sweden

*As a fun side note, a stand of Huon pine (Lagarostrobus franklinii) have been dated back as clonal sprouts from an individual that took seed around 10,500 years ago.

Aren't trees amazing! :jiggy:

wa:do

According to the Biblical time frame, that I have layed out, the first plants and trees were created and started to grow baginning in the year 9,000 BC, that being 11,000 years ago...

The King Clone creosote bush is 11,700 years old, according to Jim Cormett, curator of the Palm Springs Desert Museum and is possibly the oldest living thing on earth, discovered in the Mojave desert, Palm Springs, California.

First 1,000 year period of creation (starts 11,000 BC)
Earth was without form and void
Water was upon the whole face of the earth
Light created

Second 1,000 year period (starts 10,000 BC)
Firmament/heavens/skies created
Waters divided between earth and the firmament/heavens/skies

Third 1,000 year period (starts 9,000 BC) or 11,000 years ago
Land and waters divided
Dry land appears and seas form
Plants and trees of all kinds created

The World's Oldest Living Thing
King Clone Creosote Bush (9,700 BC) 11,700 years old

The Oldest Germinated Seed approximately 10,000 years old

Fourth 1,000 year period (starts 8,000 BC) or 10,000 years ago
Sun, moon and stars created
Day and night begins

Fifth 1,000 year period (starts 7,000 BC)
All creatures of the sea and skies created

Sixth 1,000 year period (starts 6,000 BC)
All creatures of the land created
Adam and Eve created

Seventh 1,000 year period (starts 5,000 BC)
God rested from all his labors
Adam and Eve commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil

4,004 BC
Time of the fall

Oldest Living Tree (Bristlecone Pine)
2,800 BC 4,789 years old
The oldest Bristlecones are found at elevations of 10,000 or 11,000 feet

2,304 BC about 4,300 years ago
Time of flood

See this page: Date of the flood

Trees were created starting in the year 9,000 B.C. according to the Biblical time frame.

 

[BruceDLimber]

>The earth is 13,000 years old....

From the Baha'i scriptures:

"The learned men, that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets. Consider, moreover, the manifold divergencies that have resulted from the theories propounded by these men."
--Gleanings, p. 163.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[madhatter85]

Go to the temple you will learn so much more than what can be discussed on these forums.

 

[Katzpur]

There is nothing said in the temple that has anything to do with the age of the earth or with the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not reinforcing your position... That tree had parents who had parents... and so on.

Face it, the world is older than you give god credit for.

wa:do

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I agree with your position on the age of the earth, but to challenge a creationist with the idea "Well that tree had to come from somewhere" is a little bit of a faux pas

 

[FFH]

Go to the temple you will learn so much more than what can be discussed on these forums.

Didn't realize you were an endowed member, if you're not how can you make that kind of statement without going through the temple yourself ???

I agree with Katz, there's nothing in the temple that would give ANY indication about the earthly time frame of creation, more than what is clearly layed out in scripture.

"1000 years is as a day with God". Even that's not discussed in the temple, just the basic creation scripture, no secret hidden messages or teachings about creation, in the temple, we couldn't search out and study in the scriptures themselves.

The earth was created in 6 "days," God days that is, which would be 6,000 years, with a 1,000 years (1 day with God) of earthly measured time for rest.

Also God has told us in scripture that "all is as ONE day with God and time is measured only unto men". According to the measured earthly time, it took 6,000 years to create the earth, if we were to measure the time of creation as we measure time currently on earth.

The earth will experience ANOTHER 1,000 years of rest, during this 14th earthly millenium, when Christ will rule and reign personally on earth.

This is a promise, and the general pattern, clearly layed out in scripture, there is no mistaking it and no hidden mysteries about it.

 

[fantome profane]

Thank you Painted Wolf for inadvertently reinforcing my position.



Trees were created starting in the year 9,000 B.C. according to the Biblical time frame.

I find it fascinating the way in which you select which parts of scientific knowledge you will accept and which you won’t. You accept the science that tells you that this tree is 9550 years old (which would put its original birth at around 7550 BC). But you reject the science that tells you that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. You seem to have a very effective mental filter.

 

[madhatter85]

Didn't realize you were an endowed member, if you're not how can you make that kind of statement without going through the temple yourself ???

I agree with Katz, there's nothing in the temple that would give ANY indication about the earthly time frame of creation, more than what is clearly layed out in scripture.

"1000 years is as a day with God". Even that's not discussed in the temple, just the basic creation scripture, no secret hidden messages or teachings about creation, in the temple, we couldn't search out and study in the scriptures themselves.

The earth was created in 6 "days," God days that is, which would be 6,000 years, with a 1,000 years (1 day with God) of earthly measured time for rest.

Also God has told us in scripture that "all is as ONE day with God and time is measured only unto men". According to the measured earthly time, it took 6,000 years to create the earth, if we were to measure the time of creation as we measure time currently on earth.

The earth will experience ANOTHER 1,000 years of rest, during this 14th earthly millenium, when Christ will rule and reign personally on earth.

This is a promise, and the general pattern, clearly layed out in scripture, there is no mistaking it and no hidden mysteries about it.

No i am not an endowed member yet. I would have been but i am waiting for my wife so we may go through it together.

it is not so much the actual messgae but the other things the spirit teaches you in the temple. things all fit together and start to make sense. the faithful will obtain understanding and even hidden treasures of knowledge

 

[R W Blu]

No one knows how old the Earth is. This is another subjective argument. You can rant until you're black and blue about how old the Earth is but no one really knows. Maybe the earth popped into existence a few seconds ago. The evidence, however, is against you FFH. If you were to say that the Sun orbits around the Earth I could defend that statement but not this. You would have to assume that many of the laws that are running the universe didn't take place long ago. If you can show me a single instance where the laws of the universe are broken I *might* accept that the Earth isn't as old as people say it is. Why don't we just say that one of Gods days equals about a billion+ years? That would make more sense...

Well here is something to consider. According to the highly educated minds of our modern generation, there are some 100 billion galaxies existing in our "observable" universe. And in these 100 billion galaxies there are some 300 billion stars per galaxy. We are feed the theory that a star is created due to molecular clouds that collapse and condense into the energy which is the birth of a star. We are given the "Orion Nebula" as an example of proof to this theory. We are informed that it takes millions of years for this process to take place and this is the reason that an "actual" birth of any star has NEVER been directly observed.

Do the math. The age of the universe is calculated by these same intelligent people to be 13.73 billion years. Take the number of stars (300 billion) x the number of galaxies (100 billion) divide that by the age of the Universe, and presto, we have an extrapolated estimate of ONE STAR being born every 7 minutes from the very creation of the Universe (Big Bang), some 13.7 billion years ago. Is it just me or does anyone else not find it strange that, considering the amount of time that it takes light to reach our actual observations, and the total numbers of the stars, why is it that not ONE star has actually ever been observed being created? All one would have to do is look up, and such a sight surely would be observable....if not why not? Unless they were created by another process, all at one time.

Another thing that just confounds my cognation to logic in the breaching of physical laws is the "estimated" width of the universe -- some 87 billion light years across from polar extremes. How indeed is it possible for the universe to expand at a rate faster than light itself? (13.7 billion years old). Just some things to think about. And attempted to be explained in theory, a theory that tries to explain how an expanding universe can indeed expand quicker than its light can be observed to travel, as I said, these surely must be some intelligent people, as they can explain how the very physical laws that govern our existence can be breached---- only when an explanation must be presented to obvious paradoxes of the cognation to logic. RW Blu

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is truly amazing is how fundamentalist are so very much more clever than the world's astronomers and astrophysicists.

 

[R W Blu]

What is truly amazing is how fundamentalist are so very much more clever than the world's astronomers and astrophysicists.

Just one more "clever" thought, though it is not original.....just what gestated the mass/energy of the "cosmic egg" that produced the big bang? Logic indeed is circular because we always come up with the correct answer when we make a complete circle....WE SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO OBTAIN THIS KNOWLEDGE, SO WE GUESS. However intelligently presented, a theory is still only an educated guess, and not proof actual of anything other than human pomposity. RW Blu

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just one more "clever" thought, though it is not original.....

You're half right. It's not original.

 

[R W Blu]

You're half right. It's not original.

Fundamentally speaking, just where did the concept of something being half true originate? Something that is half right or half true is often wholly wrong. Thus, the lack of intellectual retorts? Just, nope, yep, and maybe? You have certainly convinced me, and brought me over to secular humanism with the vast superior intellectual rebuttals. Typical "elitist" liberalism condescension, not worth the effort, correct? You obviously do not need to respond, you have been indoctrinated to accept such thought as inferior to human self righteousness. I congratulate you on your graduation of indoctrination. :clap RW Blu

 

[painted wolf]

the birth of a star isn't as quick as the birth of a cat. We have to see it in stages as we don't have the life span to watch the whole process in real time.

wa:do

 

[logician]

I do believe they have found many stars "in the process" of being born. Like painted wolf said, it's not a quick event compared to our life span.

 

[camanintx]

Another thing that just confounds my cognation to logic in the breaching of physical laws is the "estimated" width of the universe -- some 87 billion light years across from polar extremes. How indeed is it possible for the universe to expand at a rate faster than light itself? (13.7 billion years old). Just some things to think about. And attempted to be explained in theory, a theory that tries to explain how an expanding universe can indeed expand quicker than its light can be observed to travel, as I said, these surely must be some intelligent people, as they can explain how the very physical laws that govern our existence can be breached---- only when an explanation must be presented to obvious paradoxes of the cognation to logic. RW Blu

How fast space is expanding has no relation to the laws of physics which say that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in space.

Imagine an ant on the surface of a balloon. How fast the ant can walk across the surface of the balloon does not have any relation to how fast the balloon can be inflated. In fact, it's not hard to imagine that the balloon can be inflated at such a rate that two ants on either side walking towards each other would never meet.

 

[Azakel]

Thank you Painted Wolf for inadvertently reinforcing my position.
Trees were created starting in the year 9,000 B.C. according to the Biblical time frame.

I don't think what she posted help your clam at all because the tree is 9,550 years old, and you say tree where created in the year 9,000. Problem with that FFH my friend, the tree is still 550 years old then your time line. Sorry try again.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't think what she posted help your clam at all because the tree is 9,550 years old, and you say tree where created in the year 9,000. Problem with that FFH my friend, the tree is still 550 years old then your time line. Sorry try again.

I am really sorry to tell you this, but it is you that needs to check your math. If the tree is 9550 years old then it had its birth around 7550 BC, not 9550 BC. Am I the only one living in the 21st century?

Not that any of this is relevant to the ridiculous notion that the earth is only 13000 years old.