The World is only 7000 years old

One of the biggest questions so few want to deal with is just how old is a year? Do you measure astronomically, or via atomic clocks. Do you count off the number of days of Earth's rotation for the Earth to complete one orbit with respect to the background of stars, or do you use an atomic clock to measure off that time rather than the number of rotational day?

Seasons, days, monts, years, they are all relative to some absolute time reference. Atomic radiometric decay rates are merely assumed to be constant, we have not been around long enough and recording long enough to prove they have even been constant over the past 200 years.

But assume for a moment that radiometric decay rates have been constant since "creation" even then that does in no way mean the atomic clock length of Earth years has been a constant. Each if we can calculate or measure 4.5 billion years in terms of atomic clock time, just how long was each orbital year in atomic time when we know that at least the atomic time length of the day varies from day to day.

So many assumptions blindly made about how long each and every year was in terms of atomic clock time. A year's length in atomic time fully depends on the orbital distance from the Sun. Change the orbit and you change the atomic clock time of its year. Of course there are those who think the Earth's orbit is so fixed that it could never have possibly changed and that no celestial body could ever leave its prescribed orbit, but tell that to Planet Jupiter.

When it says Adam lived 930 Years.. ah.. just how many days would the be? Just how many atomic clock seconds would that be? What makes you think Adam's year had the same number of days in it or the same number of atomic clock seconds in it as we find our years to have?

That would be 8,000 growth rings.. the assumption is that they represent years rather than growing seasons, it could well be at some point in the past a year had two growing seasons. And besides, how long was each and every one of those years?

Of course that is a figure of speech. But for a moment scratch out the "as" Both of them. Is it at all possible that on some planet some where 1,000 of its years equals 1 of its days? Yes. It all would depend on the rate of rotation of that planet around its poles. So the statement that a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years one day is not at all absurd.

Put the as's back in, they really do belong there. To many Bible thumpers and their distractors like to leave them out.

The more I study it, even with its missing mechanism the more I am liking Neal Adam's Growing Earth Hypothesis. There is no plate subduction, no need for it.

I must admit that Gen 1:6-7 are rather difficult to understand, theologican and linguistic scholars and such have several pet theories as to its interpretation, just like science has its theories so to does Scritpure interpretation. Until you get Gen 1:1-5 understood correctly verses 6 and 7 are a real challenge. It has much more to do with semantical-syntax, grammar, definitions of words, parst of speech that the average Bible "student" would like to think, these would like to think that there are very quick and accurate answers to be found but it just isn't so. Genesis and the meanings of each word, clause, phrase and sentence found in it has been the subject of intense debate by some of the brightess minds this planet has known over the past 2,500 years. Publically everyone grabs their pet theory of interpretation and runs with it, few will admit publically that it is extremely challanging to understand.

I have been studying Dr. Walt Brown's approach for the past five years or so and find somethings that need improvement, and some things that need updated with more modern findings. His is and interesting hypothesis both in Biblical exegetes and Scientific study.

The World is only 7000 years old


Uh huh..And I am Frodo Baggins

Well, regardless of the true age of the earth, none of that negates Jesus and his message. Now that you are finally free of your brainwashing, here comes the Big Guy to tell you they were right all along. Sorry!

You cannot use Gen 1:6 to state what happened to the Flood waters. Gen 1:6 is speaking of a time long before the Flood of Noah occurred.

With an expanded Earth there is much more room and place for all the water to run off too. Such an expansion or growth in the diameter of the Earth would cause the lighter density crust to deform and produce deep oceanic valleys and high mountains. The water then just seeks its own level and flows to become the current ocean (there is after all only one ocean, one connected body of water).

I have a theory that if you take the massive collection of subterrain water that Dr. Walt Brown speaks of, and it you put this inner shell of water a couple of tens to hundreds of miles thick under the crust, but on a smaller diameter planet, and then you crack the crust by the Earth's growth or expansion (bt super heating the core) it would create something like the 42,000 mile crustal rift an expanded diameter planet, and a massive flood on the resulting surface of that planet, a flood produced by the sub-crustal waters shooting up in a several 10,000 mile long geyser with superheated steam at least 100 miles up into the air, a geyser at least a mile wide if not more. The amount of hydrualic pressure would be immense. The resulting upswelling of water and the resulting rain outs would be very similar to what is describe in the Flood of Noah account. All that is missing is the "mechanism" the smoking gun of what the "trigger" was. But then scientist still argue over what caused their hypothetical Ice Ages and are not in agreement either.

God actually hates you, and not him, because unlike you, he went out into the world and learned about God's great creation on his own, and didn't just take other people's words for it. God actually wants you to learn about his precious creation and grow with it, faith is a supplement to a greater fulfilment in finding your place in his creation. Instead you incessantly shit on people for doing what God actually intended (why do you think the natural wonders of the earth look so amazing to us), so i'm sure he's just thrilled with you right now. :)

I do find the comment about the relative lack of erosion between the different layers of the Grand Canyon rock to be very interesting in light of the fact that the different rock layers of the Sphinx are severely eroded between their layers - is the Sphinx then pre-Deluge?

OH YES - I've been searching for the perfect one small paragraph answer to the young earth nutcases.

THANK YOU!!!

Ah, Clavain, like don't you have to be there when the light first switched on to know when it first switched on, or otherwise you cannot tell how long that light has been traveling. By there, I mean at that light source and not here as an observer. Red shift, or doppler shift only tells you what direction the light is traveling toward you or away from you, not how long the light has been traveling or how long it has been on. This is especially true if space itself has been stretched out or expanded (which is what the Big Bang theory maintains) at some time or several times in the past. Such an expansion of space itself would throw off your light-time distance measurements as well as your triangulated distance ranging for those light sources.

Think. Please, think.

What exactly is a "literal 24 hour" day? It basically means one rotation of the Earth around its axis. Which could take any amount of time, even billions of "our years". Or mere hours (in our current time hours)

It is time to leave 2 Peter 3:8 be the figure of speech it is. There is nothing literal about 1 day being AS a 1,000 years, nor 1,000 years AS 1 day. And even if it was expressed as an algebraic equation such that: 1 day IS 1,000 years, and 1,000 years IS 1 day. These are two different time keeping systems.. one based on the orbit, and one based on the rotational rate of the planet around its poles.

There is no reason to even assume that the "literal 24 hour" day of Adam's time was even the same fraction of a Year as we find our own "literal 24 hour" day to be. We are never even told how many "literal 24 hour" days were in Adam's year. We are only told how long Adam lived in terms of his Years and not in terms of ours, which may be vastly different. Both would have days of "literal 24 hours" in length. Stop and think a minute about the very definition of the term, "hour". Is it "clock time" or is it really something else when used in the Scriptures?

You then make a Religion out of Science. Science which still is looking for a "god" particle at CERN. So cool. Science as religion. The Universe is the Self-existent one, always eternally existing in one form or another. Cool. The Universe then is god.

Ah, I fail to see how counting the number of Carbon 12 atoms and the number of Carbon 14 atoms (which radioactively decay into Carbon 12) is not radiometric dating.

A creation day is "a morning and an evening" or "light and dark". No mention of 24 hours per se.

I always took that Peter 3:8 to be a way of saying that time is no boundary to God.

wow. i just cant get my mind around that...

If you set aside your KJV translation for a moment, there is this other translation of Genesis 1:1-2 that reads:

"In beginning Elohim created the essence of the many-waters and the essence of the Earth. And the Earth came into being without form and lifeless. And darkness was upon the face of the surging mass, And the spirit of Elohiym moved upon the face of the waters. And Elohiym said, "let their be light". And there was light." And it wasn't until the end of the "sixth day" that Elohiym stated that It was all very good, and that it was all prepared, laid down, established and full of life and light and form.

2 Peter 3:1-7 is often used to indicate a universal or at least global flood occured long before the Flood of Noah occurred, and that it was that flood that cause the earth to "become" a ruin and a desolation, or to become without form and void. This issue has been tossed around by Hebrew and Greek scholars for at least two thousand years and there still is no consensus view, nor unamious constent agreement on exactly what it means.

You do realise, don't you, that the vast bulk of the earth is unexplored. The number of folks who dedicate their lives to digging up skeletons is extremely small. Kind of like your brain.

And yet another very well said post. Some people are very intelligent out there. :) I couldn't have said it better myself! :)

And yet another very well said post. Some people are very intelligent out there. :) I couldn't have said it better myself! :)

The other assumption: radioactive decay rates have always been what they are today and are constant through out all times and places.

Radiocarbon dating has proven to be null and void, because of false results... if the object being tested has been exposed to fire, smoke and guess what else....


RADIATION.



[link to www.angelfire.com]

Bold statement,speculate all you want,show some proof.

The other question is, did man come into existence 6000 years ago, around 4,000 B.C. how quite a few people think???

Even though the earth is billions of years old, man people think man was created 6000 years ago.

"Estimate".

Wondering just what volume of water is currently caught up in all the rocks, the mantle, the crust, etc, on Earth. What happens if all that water were to be squeezed out?

Thanks for the invitation to discuss your case. Clearly you are demented and I suggest you jump onto rocks from a high place as this is the only cure.

Are YOU, GOD, that you should know such a thing?

New man, the new race, introduced by God via Adam and Eve.

YA MAN, NO FUCKING WAY!

Do you live in the Bible Belt?

I hope your Belt has bells so I can clear out if you come near.

Yes, and this is a very important assumption, and yet, just that an assumption. And an unprovable one at that. Change the nature of the vacuum of "free space" and you change that "constant". Remember I said change the nature of the "vacuum of free space". Such assumptions to be applied with any form of "certainty" calls for that certainty to be based on blind faith in one's working assumption.

E = MC^2 or in other words, C = square root of (E/M). As an algebraic equation the only way C can be constant is if both E and M are constants as well.

Say for a moment that God injects a bunch more light energy or photons into the Universe from His side of the quantum froth. The amount of Energy in the universe has just increased, what does that then do by that equation to the speed of light?

If you stretch out the fabric of space you have changed the permeativity and the permisstivity of space and hence have changed the vacuum of free space, so light speed would have to change.