the earth is 13,000 years old not 6,000 right

[Photonic]

Where's the ad hominem? I expected worse, this is just funny. So I'm assuming you don't actually disagree that what I quoted debunks the title? If you think that's ad honinem, you have no idea what ad hominem actually means. Thank you for sharing. Now perhaps you'd like to actually address the facts. Perhaps you'd like to explain how the problem is "Solved" as the title says. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the boulders wouldn't grind each other to dust. In the face of the actual text of the article such as what I quoted. Or you can just brush off my response as ad hominem, that works too.

Calm down. I can understand that you thought you actually proved someone wrong by using an article that doesn't support your position. But it doesn't work that way. You just extrapolated what you wanted to and came to a wildly different conclusion that isn't supported by evidence.

Go do some research and figure out where you went wrong, and postulate a new hypothesis.

You called scientists dishonest and told anyone who didn't agree with that to fudge off basically. That's not how the process works.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so that's an absolute refusal to go over what I quoted, thanks.

 

[camanintx]

Have you actually read their "Solution"?

Actually, yes, I have read it, and you can read it for yourself here. And contrary to what you claim in Post 78, it provides a model explaining how Earth was able to get past the Planeteismal phase and not crash into the sun.

 

[Shermana]

Actually, yes, I have read it, and you can read it for yourself here. And contrary to what you claim in Post 78, it provides a model explaining how Earth was able to get past the Planeteismal phase and not crash into the sun.

Okay, so did you totally ignore the part where your link mentions they may have grinded each other into dust? Hopefully you realize that "Solved" is a very misleading title for your post. "Possibly solved" would be far more honest.

I appreciate you getting the full link of my article though. Models are not proof. If models were proof, Einstein's theories wouldn't be theories.

The point is, that its a "major unsolved problem" that scientists are trying to find a solution for, and desparately at that. I'd say that the one who figures it out should be held as the greatest Cosmologist of all time.

 

[camanintx]

Okay, so did you totally ignore the part where your link mentions they may have grinded each other into dust? Hopefully you realize that "Solved" is a very misleading title for your post. "Possibly solved" would be far more honest.

The paper makes no mention that the boulders may have grinded each other into dust, saying only that "planetesimal formation depends crucially on the existence of a dense sedimentary layer of boulders. Future investigations should focus on the formation and survival of such layers in light of processes like coagulation, collisional fragmentation and erosion." Which is exactly what other scientists have done.

Planetesimals to protoplanets – II. Effect of debris on terrestrial planet formation​

The point is, that its a "major unsolved problem" that scientists are trying to find a solution for, and desparately at that. I'd say that the one who figures it out should be held as the greatest Cosmologist of all time.

No, the point is that it is not a "little hidden fact" that Earth "should have spiraled into the sun long ago, gas headwinds alone".

 

[Shermana]

You apparently don't know the difference between "your link" and "my link". Your last post was the full version of MY link.

What do you suppose the "Major unsolved problem" in MY link is referring to? When I say "hidden little fact", I'm saying that this is a very rarely known issue. Apparently its even news for our resident Astrophysicist too!For such a major unsolved problem, they sure like to keep quiet about it. Maybe someone should add it in to the "Wikipedia list of unsolved problems in Physics", they must have forgotten this glaring one there...or just not enough people are aware of it.

It's not discussed often for a reason.

 

[Panda]

It's not discussed often for a reason.

A quick search seems to show it is discussed an awful lot in fact. Lots of scientists seem to be talking about it and nature ran an article on it this year.

What isn't discussed of course is that it is in anyway proof to your little pet theory as there is no science to back it up and it is, rightly so, rejected.

 

[Scott C.]

So you believe the universe is only 6000 years old contrary to ALL facts that point otherwise?

Or that Adam and Eve existed physically? Even though the human race has been proven to be far older than that.

No, I believe that the "Fall of Man" occurred about 6000 years ago. The earth can be trillions of years old, as far as I'm concerned. Matter, in some form, in the universe has probably been there forever, making it without beginning.

I believe that Adam and Eve walked the earth as physical beings and all humans alive today are their descendants.

I have no problem with other pre-Adam pre-human beings coming before Adam and Eve. Since all humans today are sons and daughters of God, which distinguishes us from all other life forms, I believe that Adam and Eve were the first son and daughter of God on earth. All of their descendants are sons and daughters of God. (This is a theory I came up with to reconcile my view that "Adam and Eve were real" with science).

 

[Panda]

No, I believe that the "Fall of Man" occurred about 6000 years ago. The earth can be trillions of years old, as far as I'm concerned. Matter, in some form, in the universe has probably been there forever, making it without beginning.

I believe that Adam and Eve walked the earth as physical beings and all humans alive today are their descendants.

I have no problem with other pre-Adam pre-human beings coming before Adam and Eve. Since all humans today are sons and daughters of God, which distinguishes us from all other life forms, I believe that Adam and Eve were the first son and daughter of God on earth. All of their descendants are sons and daughters of God. (This is a theory I came up with to reconcile my view that "Adam and Eve were real" with science).

So how does this reconcile with cultures and history that shows human habitation before this time?

 

[outhouse]

No, I believe that the "Fall of Man" occurred about 6000 years ago. The earth can be trillions of years old, as far as I'm concerned. Matter, in some form, in the universe has probably been there forever, making it without beginning.

I believe that Adam and Eve walked the earth as physical beings and all humans alive today are their descendants.

I have no problem with other pre-Adam pre-human beings coming before Adam and Eve. Since all humans today are sons and daughters of God, which distinguishes us from all other life forms, I believe that Adam and Eve were the first son and daughter of God on earth. All of their descendants are sons and daughters of God. (This is a theory I came up with to reconcile my view that "Adam and Eve were real" with science).

Sop why do you discount all modern science departments???

Why do you ignore facts that show your belief is DEAD wrong???

 

[outhouse]

Indeed.

"A thousand years is like unto a day for thee..."



A little hidden fact most Astronomers rarely talk about, with such years as the "Billions" the Earth should have spiraled into the sun long ago, gas headwinds alone.

WRONG

you dont have the education to make such statements

second you dont use theology as a replacement for valid science

 

[Scott C.]

So how does this reconcile with cultures and history that shows human habitation before this time?

Maybe those "humans" were highly sophisticated animals, that were not fully evolved to the point where God declared that his creation of man was complete. Though they had "souls" and intelligence, as any animal, they were not the children of God.

Perhaps after the creation of man was complete and man was now in the image of God, God breathed life into Adam and Eve. Their spiritual component was markedly different from any preceeding human like being. Adam and Eve started the race of the children of God, those into whom when God breathed life, he placed the souls of his children.

I believe that we lived as spirit children of God before we were born. God prepared a mortal world, where we would go to get mortal bodies and have a mortal experience. Adam and Eve were the first physical beings to receive male and female spirits that came from the presence of God. Adam and Eve, as all of us, lived in heaven long before the creation of the earth began.

Animals have spirits too, but those spirits are not sons and daughters of God. They are something else. So, dogs have dog spirits. Cats have cat spirits. Neanderthols have neanderthol spirits. Pre-Adam humans have the spirits of whatever they are.

Only Adam, Eve, and their descendants have the spirits that came from the presence of God as the children of God.

Some of what I just said is LDS doctrine and some is my pure speculation, maybe right, maybe not

 

[Panda]

Maybe those "humans" were highly sophisticated animals, that were not fully evolved to the point where God declared that his creation of man was complete. Though they had "souls" and intelligence, as any animal, they were not the children of God.

Perhaps after the creation of man was complete and man was now in the image of God, God breathed life into Adam and Eve. Their spiritual component was markedly different from any preceeding human like being. Adam and Eve started the race of the children of God, those into whom when God breathed life, he placed the souls of his children.

Maybe, maybe not

I'm guessing you aren't talking about physical changes though? Going by this though how do groups that have history past this 6000 years mark work? As well as how do you reconcile things like groups that were separated from Eurasian peoples before this 6000 years mark? Examples being the Aboriginals and I think native Americans tribes. What I am trying to say is if they have a culture and tradition spanning back before your 6000 year mark with no knowledge of your Adam and Eve story how exactly, by your definition of the word, are they human? Or are these things merely wrong?

 

[camanintx]

What do you suppose the "Major unsolved problem" in MY link is referring to?

The same problem they presented a solution for, obviously.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I am 1 hour old not 27 minutes old right :jester3:

 

[rusra02]

i dont see how you can say the earth is 6,000 years old :no: if adam was created 6,000 years ago and he was created on the 6th day thats 6,000 more years that makes the earth between 12,000 and 13,000 years old right:help:

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates how old the earth is. It simply states "In the beginning God created the ...earth". (Genesis 1:1) This allows for current estimates of billions of years and any future refinement of these estimates.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Jezz - talk about a fake ID.

"I'm 4.5billion years old, I promise."

 

[outhouse]

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates how old the earth is. It simply states "In the beginning God created the ...earth". (Genesis 1:1) This allows for current estimates of billions of years and any future refinement of these estimates.

wrong


the bible is very clear about the age of the earth due to adam and eves age by lineage

 

[angellous_evangellous]

wrong


the bible is very clear about the age of the earth due to adam and eves age by lineage

I don't think so. That is the method by which people figure the age of the earth, but I'm not convinced that these myths were intentionally literal about the age of one person or if the storyteller simply wanted a connection to the original Adam and Eve and simply made up numbers according to some meaning for his hearers (numerology or astronomy, for example).

The literal reading of those texts, IMHO, is extremely shallow and has no consideration for the story itself.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think so. That is the method by which people figure the age of the earth, but I'm not convinced that these myths were intentionally literal about the age of one person or if the storyteller simply wanted a connection to the original Adam and Eve and simply made up numbers according to some meaning for his hearers (numerology or astronomy, for example).

The literal reading of those texts, IMHO, is extremely shallow and has no consideration for the story itself.

I agree with all that.

we know they were allegory, but trying to convince the literalist is another story.